Sitting of 4 March 1909

Mr. Speaker's Absence.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, through indisposition, from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Baghdad Railway.
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he could give the House any information regarding the present position of the Baghdad Railway?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey)No further progress has been made in the construction of the Baghdad Railway since the hon. Member's last question on this subject, on 17th December last.

  King's Visit to Berlin.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Earl of Crewe, on the occasion of the King's recent visit to Berlin, accompanied the King in his capacity of Secretary of State as the representative of the Foreign Office, or simply as a member, as in the case of Sir Charles Hardinge, the Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of His Majesty's suite; was the Earl of Crewe present at the interviews on matters of international policy between the Emperor of Germany and His Majesty, and, if so, in what capacity; did he assume ministerial responsibility to the House of Commons in relation to the matters then under discussion and the conclusions which were the upshot of these interviews; and has he communicated to the Foreign Office the results of these negotiations?
  Sir E. GREYLord Crewe accompanied the King in his capacity of a Cabinet Minister. Any conversations or exchanges of views which take place on the occasion of the King's visits, and which have any official character, are reported and recorded at the Foreign Office.
  Mr. MacNEILLDid Lord Crewe discharge the functions which the right hon. Gentleman as Foreign Minister ought to have discharged on that occasion?
  Sir E. GREYNo, Sir; I am responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, and that responsibility remains unimpaired. It does not appear to occur to the hon. Member to ask who would have been responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Foreign Office if I had gone to Berlin. That is just as reasonable a question.
  Mr. MacNEILLI cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the information, but if I could I should tell him that the Home Secretary is responsible.

  British and Japanese Trade Marks.
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was in a position to state the result of the negotiations which have been proceeding for the conclusion of a Convention with the Japanese Government for the mutual protection of British and Japanese trade-marks in China?
  Sir E. GREYI am not yet in a position to state the result of the negotiations, but they are still proceeding.

  Port of Agadir.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any information respecting the Southern Moroccan port of Agadir having been closed to commerce and British vessels having been ordered to leave it; and, if so, whether he could state the reason for this action?
  Sir E. GREYI have not heard of any British vessels having been ordered to leave, but the port of Agadir is not one of those open to trade.

  Sunday Observance in Egypt.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, as a result of official enforcements of Sunday observance in Egypt and of the concurrent intimidation practised by the Sunday Rest League of Cairo, Moslem workmen engaged in building operations there have to work upon Friday, their own religious rest-day, and to cease work upon Sundays; and whether he will urge upon the Egyptian Government the necessity of bringing official regulations and practice into conformity with the preferences of the mass of the population?
  Sir E. GREYI have received no report on this subject. The matter is one of internal administration, as regards which the Egyptian Government are perfectly free to exercise their own discretion and are the best judges of what the preference of the population is.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONMay I ask whether by the Egyptian Government he means the Ministers of the Khedive acting for themselves or under the English control that dictates to them?
  Sir E. GREYI mean the Ministers of the Khedive acting under control.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONWill the right hon. Gentleman assure us that they are free to use their discretion in such matters as this?
  Sir E. GREYI should think they are, and I have not the least reason to suppose that there has been anything whatever done to interfere with their discretion.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONIs it suggested that the Ministers of the Khedive of their own choice caused workers and many officials in Cairo to abstain from work on Sunday and to work on their own sacred day?
  Sir E. GREYI have not heard that they have done so, nor am I aware that there has been any complaint in the matter.

  Lands of Killasonna (Westmeath).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have acquired the lands of Killasonna, county Westmeath, from the landlady, Miss M'Cormack; when do they intend to divide this ranch; who are the parties to get a share; and how long ago since the Commissioners acquired this property?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)The Estates Commissioners assume that the lands referred to are those of Kilfintan. The Commissioners have not yet acquired these lands, but the owner has intimated her willingness to accept their estimated price, and formal proceedings for sale are pending.

  Lands of Cartron (Longford).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have acquired from Mr. Levenge, the landlord, by agreement, the lands of Cartron, or Corteen, Parish of Cloonguish, county Longford, for increasing the uneconomic holdings and restoring evicted tenants of the district; when will the land be divided; and the number of applications for this grazing ranch?
  Mr. BIRRELLProceedings have recently been instituted and are pending be-for the Estates Commissioners for the sale of these lands under the Irish Land Act,
  1564
  1903. It is not possible to make any further statement at this stage of the proceedings.

  O'Grady Delmage Estate (Clare).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether the Estates Commissioners will consider the advisability of acquiring the untenanted lands on the O'Grady Delmage estate, county Clare, for the purpose of increasing the holdings of the small farmers in the district and giving farms to suitable applicants?
  Mr. BIRRELLUp to the present no proceedings have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of the lands referred to. It is not proposed to acquire the lands compulsorily. The lands are of poor quality and would not be suitable for evicted tenants.

  Untenanted Lands of Gurrane (Cork).
  Mr. FLYNNasked whether the Estates Commissioners are yet in a position to say what steps have been taken towards the acquisition of the untenanted lands of Gurrane, Garryduff, and Templemary, on the Fuge estate, county Cork, with a view to the reinstatement of evicted tenants, allotments of land to qualified labourers, and enlargement of uneconomic holdings under the provision of the Acts of 1903 and 1907?
  Mr. BIRRELLAs regards the lands of Templemary, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question asked by him on 3rd December last. A petition praying that the other lands referred to in the question be not acquired compulsorily has been filed and is awaiting determination.
  Mr. FLYNNAre the Commissioners aware that this case is typical of a great many others in which the landlord is willing to sell the untenanted portions if he can get money advanced for the tenanted land, and can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to expedite the proceedings in these matters?
  Mr. BIRRELLThe Commissioners are pretty well acquainted with what are typical cases and what are not. I will call their attention to what the hon. Member says.

  Lands of the Leader Estate (Cork).
  Mr. FLYNNasked whether the Estates Commissioners can now state what action has been taken in respect to the proposed acquisition of the whole or part of the untenanted lands of the Leader estate, Dromagh, county Cork, with a view to pro-

  1565
  curing holdings for evicted tenants of the adjoining district, enlargement of existing uneconomic holdings, and allotments for industrious labourers; and whether, having regard to the fact that purchase agreements were signed by the settled tenants over four years ago, the Commissioners will expedite the completion of the purchase transaction so as to open the way for the acquisition of the untenanted lands?
  Mr. BIRRELLThe Estates Commissioners have had a preliminary inspection made of the untenanted land on this estate, and have intimated the price they are prepared to advance, but the owner is not willing to sell at the price offered.

  Extra Police at Ballynacally (Clare).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many extra police are at Ballynacally, county Clare; and whether this district is at present in a perfectly peaceable state?
  Mr. BIRRELLThere are at present six extra police at Ballynacally in addition to the ordinary force of one sergeant and four constables. There was an organised cattle-drive on the demesne of Mr. W. H. Ball on 14th November, and the presence of extra police at Ballynacally is regarded by the constabulary authorities as absolutely essential to prevent interference with the stock on the demesne lands.
  Mr. W. REDMONDMay I ask whether it is not a fact that since the date mentioned this locality has been perfectly peaceable, and whether in view of that it is necessary to maintain this large force of police? Let me also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the charge to the grand jury by Mr. Justice Wright, in which he said that in the whole of county Clare there was not one single case of boycotting?
  Mr. BIRRELLI have read with pleasure the observations of Mr. Justice Wright in regard to the state of the county referred to, and I am also in accord with what fell from the hon. Member as to the general condition of the county. But we have to remember that there have been disturbances there, and that there is particular liability to a recurrence of unlawful practices on account of the demesne lands being let to graziers. The fact that extra police are kept there does not imply any general imputation on people of the country.

  Traffic in Firearms in Ireland.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, having regard to the increase in the number of outrages with firearms reported since the expiry of the Peace Preservation Act, he will cause special inquiries to be made by the police with regard to the traffic in rifles and revolvers now being carried on in some parts of Ireland, and specially with regard to the sale of such weapons on the instalment plan?
  Mr. BIRRELLThis matter has not escaped the notice of the police, who are giving it careful attention.
  Mr. LONSDALEI beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider, in view of what was stated by Lord Crewe in another place, that the introduction—[Cries of "Order," amid which the remainder of the question was inaudible in the Press Gallery.] Addressing Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Mr. Lonsdale said: Am I in order in asking a question of that kind?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe form of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was not in order.

  Rathkeale Schoolhouse.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say whether he made any representation to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to contribute the cost of repair of the schoolhouse for the boys at Rathkeale, in the county of Limerick, having regard to the fact that the manager has signified his willingness to vest it in trustees on that condition, and having regard to the fact that the locality in years past subscribed £800, the total cost of the building; and, if so, can he say whether the Commissioners are willing to act on his representation?
  Mr. BIRRELLI have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the question asked by the hon. Member on this subject on 2nd June last.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not appeal to the Commissioners to contribute?
  Mr. BIRRELLI really cannot interfere with the discretion of the Commissioners in a matter of this kind.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYDid the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELLI communicated with the Commissioners, and I cannot do anything further in the matter.

  Church Temporalities Commissioners.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Church Temporalities Commissioners are paying £1 per week to a caretaker for herding a small holding near Knockaderry, in the county of Limerick, from which they evicted the late William Brown, and from which they receive no return for this outlay; and whether, having regard to this fact and also that the widow Brown is willing to pay a fair rent for the holding, he would use his influence with the Commissioners to have her reinstated?
  Mr. BIRRELLI would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question on the same subject asked by him on 3rd December last.

  Agrarian Outrages (Return).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he consents to the return relative to agrarian outrages of which notice appears on to-day's Paper?
  Mr. BIRRELLI have written to the hon. Member on this subject.

  Lord Macdonnell's Reports (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will lay upon the Table a précis of any reports made to him by the late Under-Secretary, Lord MacDonnell, relative to the lawlessness in certain districts and the effectiveness of the machinery of the ordinary law in dealing with the same?
  Mr. BIRRELLDid any such reports exist it would be clearly impossible and contrary to all sound precedent to produce them. As a matter of fact, communications made to me by Lord Macdonnell when Under-Secretary were made verbally in the course of frequent and friendly conversations.

  Challenging Jurors.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that at the Munster Winter Assizes of 1906 the Crown ordered 45 jurors to stand aside without cause assigned in the case of R. v. Meany, 21 in the case of R. v. Ward and Casey, and 15 in each of the two cases R. v. Leary, and R. v. Healy; whether he is aware that at the late Munster and Connaught Winter Assizes the practice of challenging jurors without cause was also freely resorted to by the Crown, as many as 66 jurors having been ordered to stand by in three cases from Sligo tried at the latter assizes; and will he state whether it is now proposed to
  1568
  cancel the rule of February, 1894, in pursuance of which such challenges were made?
  Mr. CHERRYI am informed that the numbers of jurors ordered to stand aside at the Munster Winter Assizes of 1906 are correctly stated in the question. As to the cases mentioned tried at the last Winter Assizes for Connaught, I desire to refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for North Sligo on the 14th day of December last. It is not proposed to cancel the rule referred to in the last part of the question.

  Peace Preservation Act.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he will lay upon the Table a précis of the reports made by the police authorities in Ireland on the subject of the repeal of the Peace Preservation Act?
  Mr. BIRRELLI have already informed the hon. Member that any reports which may have been made on this subject by the police authorities are confidential.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what are the arrangements in contemplation for the firing by the police of a certain number of rounds of revolver cartridges annually by every Member of the force; and will he state in what respect such arrangements are a variation of the arrangements hitherto existing in the case of men serving in counties?
  Mr. BIRRELLThe existing arrangements for the instruction of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the use of the revolver have been in force for a great number of years under successive Governments. The men are put through a course of practice. The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary arranges the details.
  Mr. CRAIGMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the course of practice of which he speaks is only allowed when the constables are at the depot, and that after they leave the depot they never fire a single round?
  Mr. BIRRELLI believe that is not the case. The Inspector-General deprecates discussions of this matter in the House.
  Mr. FLYNNWill the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of arming the constabulary with field guns, Howitzers, Maxim guns, and so forth, to enable them to carry out their duties?
  Mr. BIRRELLI am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would object to that.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, except in the mounted force and except as recruits at the depot, the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have had any revolver-firing practice with ball cartridge during the last five years?
  Mr. BIRRELLI would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to a question asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh.
  Mr. CRAIGMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman on what ground the Inspector-General deprecates the bringing of this question before the House?
  Mr. BIRRELLI do not know the precise grounds, but I certainly deprecate it.
  Mr. CRAIGMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will ascertain from the Inspector-General "Yes" or "No" whether it is a fact that the constabulary have never fired a shot out of their revolvers?
  Mr. BIRRELLNo.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. HOGANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have made an offer to purchase the estate of Stony, situate in the parish of Loragh, county Tipperary; and, if so, can he say how the negotiations now stand?
  Mr. BIRRELLThe Estates Commismissioners have had a preliminary inspection made of the lands, and have intimated to the owner the price they would be prepared to advance, but up to the present formal proceedings for sale have not been instituted before them.
  Mr. HOGANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the untenanted land on what is known as the Spaight property, situate near Ballina, in North Tipperary, has been offered for sale to the Estate Commissioners; whether an inspector has been sent on the lands; and, if not, will it be done before the lands are again let for another eleven months?
  Mr. BIRRELLThe lands in question have not been offered to the Estate Commissioners. If proceedings for sale are instituted the lands will be inspected in their order of priority.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether on the estate of R. G. Kellet, Barley Hill, county
  1570
  Meath, the owner constituted his brother a tenant since the passing of the Land Act of 1903; whether the Estates Commissioners are aware of this fact; and will they make inquiries before advancing money to purchase a tenancy so created?
  Mr. BIRRELLThe Estates Commissioners inform me that the owner of this estate proposed to constitute his brother a tenant of certain lands with a view to selling them to him under the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The Commissioners have, however, refused to make any advance to the owner's brother for the purchase of the lands referred to.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have refused advances applied for by some small tenants on the estate of R. G. Kellet, Barley Hill, county Meath; whether the refusal was due to the fact that the tenants refused to take very inferior land for the enlargement of their holdings whilst fairly good untenanted land was available on the estate; and whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction given by the inspector engaged in the case in other districts of county Meath, they will send another inspector to report before declaring any of the lands an estate?
  Mr. BIRRELLAs the hon. Member has already been informed, the owner and his brother arranged to make 100 acres in their occupation available for the purposes of distribution amongst the smaller occupiers on this estate. As these occupiers refused to accept the allotments and to complete the purchase of their holdings, the Estates Commissioners excluded their holdings from the sale and their purchase agreements were accordingly dismissed. The estate was visited by more than one inspector, and it is not proposed to have a further inspection made.
  Mr O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say what steps, if any, the Estates Commissioners have taken to purchase the untenanted lands on the Massy estate, situate at Glenville and Ballylin, near Ardagh, in the county of Limerick; is he aware of the number of tenants of uneconomic holdings on this estate; and whether, having regard to this fact, the Estates Commissioners will acquire these lands without further delay for the purpose of enlarging them and for making provision for the evicted tenants in the locality?
  Mr. BIRRELLThe Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands have been inspected, and they have intimated to the owner the price which they would be prepared to advance if formal proceedings for sale were instituted.

  Précis, Police Reports (Ireland).
  Mr. GORDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the police reports, of which a précis has been laid upon the Table, are limited to a review of the condition of affairs existing in each county during the month of January, 1909, only; and will he, in order that the House may have before it a similar review of the condition of each county throughout the year 1908, lay upon the Table a précis of the periodical reports made by the police authorities in that year?
  Mr. BIRRELLThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The object in placing the précis before the House was to give the latest information as to the state of the country which had been received from the police authorities. I do not see any sufficient reason for laying a précis of previous reports on the Table.
  Mr. GORDONasked whether the précis takes cognisance of all matters reported upon by the police authorities; and, if not, what matters have been excluded from reference in the précis?
  Mr. BIRRELLThe pr—cis takes cognisance of all matters reported by the police authorities as bearing upon the state of the country in regard to law and order generally. References to individuals which it would be inexpedient to publish were omitted, as also some matters which had no bearing on the question of public order.

  Indian Immigrants.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether satisfactory arrangements have been made for warning natives of India as to the reception they are likely to receive in British Columbia; and whether, in view of representations by the Government of British Honduras to the effect that favourable opportunities exist there for the employment of Indian immigrants, inquiries have been made as to the correctness of such representations in order to the publication of satisfactory information on this subject also in parts of India whence emigration to Canada proceeds?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Buchanan)The Government of India
  1572
  have full information as to the prospects of employment open to natives of India in British Columbia, and it is understood that they have published as far as practicable warnings to Indians that emigration thither is undesirable. As to British Honduras, the Government of India have been informed of the openings for Indian labour in that Colony. It was at one time thought that Indians now in British Columbia who found difficulty in obtaining work there might desire to avail themselves of the opportunity of migrating to British Honduras; but there appears to be at present no large number of unemployed Indians in British Columbia, and the matter has been dropped. No desire has been expressed by the Colony of British Honduras to import Indian labour direct from India.
  Mr. REESasked the under-Secretary of State for India whether he can assure the House that the Indian taxpayer shall in no case be charged on account of payment of wages to foreigners of any rates in excess of those ordinarily prevailing in the countries of such foreigners whenever stores for India are purchased in such foreign countries?
  Mr. BUCHANANThe Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that foreign employers of labour have any intention of acting as suggested by the hon. Member.

  Indian Councils Bill.
  Mr. SMEATONI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the Indian Councils Bill is in reality little more than a skeleton or procedure Bill, and that the substantive enactments are to take the form of rules and regulations made by the Governor-General in Council, is it the intention of the Secretary of State to lay those rules and regulations before Parliament prior to their becoming operative?
  Mr. BUCHANANIt is in accordance with the established practice, fully accepted by this House on the strong recommendation of Mr. Gladstone in the case of the Indian Councils Act of 1892, that regulations, such as will have to be made under this Bill if it becomes law, should be made by the Government of India, and should become operative without being previously discussed in Parliament, and the Secretary of State has no intention of making any change in this respect.
  Mr. SMEATONSeeing that these rules have the force of law, and are therefore an adjunct to the Act, may I ask whether this House has not the Constitutional right to review an Act passed by itself?
  Mr. BUCHANANAs at present advised, we are merely following the precedents of previous administrations, which allowed a great deal of latitude to the Government of India in settling the details of an intricate Act.
  Mr. SMEATONMay I ask, as the regulations have to have the sanction of the Secretary of State, whether it would not be quite reasonable, after such examination, to submit them to this House for review?
  Mr. BUCHANANThat, I think, is the original question in another form.
  Sir HENRY COTTONIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the authority of Mr. Gladstone, behind which he shelters himself, related to a question of the details whereas these rules and regulations affect principles? Does not that alter the case?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not prepared to accept the interpretation which my hon. Friend puts on this Bill. I think that the whole of the matters under the Act of 1892 were equally important.
  Mr. MacNEILLIs the hon. Gentleman aware, with regard to Acts of Parliament in this country that rules and regulations are always laid on the Table of the House?
  Mr. BUCHANANThat is under an Act of Parliament.
  Sir HENRY COTTONMay I ask whether—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI really think that further questions should be put on the Paper.

  Rates on Petrol.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER (on behalf of Sir Edward Carson)asked the Under-Secretary for India whether any arrangement has yet been come to with the Government of France as to the rates to be charged on petrol produced in British India and imported into France; and whether the French Government refuse to allow such importation on the same terms as are granted to Russia, Roumania, and the United States?
  Mr. BUCHANANIndian petrol imported into France pays import duty according to the general tariff, whereas Russian, Roumanian, and United States petrol is admitted to the minimum rate by reason of treaty stipulations. The French Government is unwilling to admit Indian petrol to the minimum rate except in return for some special concession, and that the Indian Government does not see its way to grant.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTERWill the hon. Gentleman lay the correspondence on the Table?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to have notice of that question.
  Mr. SMEATONIs the hon. Member aware that in all India the province of Burmah is the hardest hit by such duties on petrol, and whether it would not be wise to try and threaten retaliation upon the imported wines of France?
  Sir G. PARKERDoes not the Government think that is an infringement of the most-favoured-nation clause?
  Mr. BUCHANANNo, I do not think so.

  Native Population of Fiji.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether the attention of His Majesty's Government continues to be directed to the decline of the native population of Fiji, estimated in 1871 at 140,000, reduced to 127,000 in 1881, after the epidemic coincident with the annexation, and now under 87,000; whether the Indian and non-native coloured inhabitants and the European population of Fiji show a death-rate comparable with that among the Fijian native race; and whether, since the despatch of the Governor to the Secretary of State received in October last, in which he alludes to such time as, by the dying out of the Fijian race, the Crown may become ultimus hœres to the land, inquiry has been made as to how far improved measures of administration may be expected to save from gradual extinction the native population of Fiji?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely)The death-rates per thousand per annum among the natives, Indian immigrant population and European inhabitants of Fiji, were as follows, for the three last years for which statistics are available:—

  1905.

  1906.

  1907.

  Natives

  37.99

  37.40

  39.14

  Indians

  20.34

  20.98

  19.87

  Europeans

  13.83

  12.2

  12.3

  His Majesty's Government are giving close attention to the serious state of affairs indicated by these figures, and communicated last October with the Colonial Government in regard to further measures for checking the decrease of the native population, but have not yet received a reply. I may add, however, that the figures for the years 1905–07 are an improvement upon the figures for 1895–1904.

  Discontent in Trinidad.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he is aware that discontent exists in Trinidad as to the treatment meted out to the employees on the Government railway; if he could give the number of men dismissed last year, the nature of the offence justifying such dismissal, and the fine or punishment imposed in each case, the number of men reduced in position, and the nature of the offence calling for such charge; and whether any of the employees so treated had an opportunity of defence, and, if so, the nature of the decision?
  Colonel SEELYI am not in the position to give the details asked for by my hon. Friend, as the report on the railways for last year has not yet been received, but the question will be referred to the officer administering the Government of Trinidad.

  East Coast of Africa.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that rebates and preferences are granted to the Deutsche Ost Afrika Linie and Messageries Maritimes Companies, that these companies are subsidised by the German and French Governments, and that British merchants are, therefore, at a disadvantage on the East Coast of Africa, though more than half of the cargo and passenger traffic is British; and whether, in consideration of the growing importance of British Possessions on that coast, the Government has under consideration the need of promoting the establishment of a direct line of steamers or of subsidising the existing line?
  Colonel SEELYI am aware of the conditions under which trade with the East Coast of Africa is at present carried on, and the question of steamship communication between this country and that coast is receiving the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government.

  Dinizulu (Sentence).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had received any information as to the result of the trial of Dinizulu?
  Colonel SEELYYes, Sir. The Governor has telegraphed that Dinizulu has been awarded four years' imprisonment on account of Counts 7 and 16 in the indictment, and one year or a fine of £100 on account of Count 5. It will be seen, on referring to the indictment printed in Cd. 4404 that these Counts refer to the harbouring of rebels.
  Mr. MACKARNESSMay I ask, considering that Dinizulu has already been imprisoned for 15 months, and as the most serious charges for which he was arrested have broken down, and bearing in mind the very difficult position in which he was placed when the Bambaata family took refuge with him, whether the Secretary of State will advise a mitigation of the sentence?
  Colonel SEELYWith regard to the first part of the question I understand from a Press telegram, though I have not yet had official intimation of it, that the sentence is to run from the date of his first imprisonment 15 months ago, and therefore there will be a reduction of the sentence by that amount. There is also a Press telegram to the effect that the fine of £500 has been paid, but that is likewise unconfirmed. If that is so the sentence would be reduced to something over two years. As regards the further question, my hon. Friend will understand that as we have only received a telegram it is impossible and it would be undesirable to make any statement at present.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Seeing that Dinizulu has not been convicted of the serious offences of rebellion and murder which were charged against him, and having regard to the feeling of the native population and to the peace of the country, will the hon. Member consider the advisability of remitting the sentence passed altogether?
  Colonel SEELYAs I understand it, and so far as we know, it is the case that Dinizulu has not been found guilty of the more serious offences. With regard to the second part of the question I cannot add more than I have said.
  Mr. W. REDMONDI beg to give notice that in consequence of the hon. Gentleman's answer, I will, after a lapse of a reasonable interval, raise this question again.
  Sir HENRY COTTONCan the hon. Gentleman explain what the expression "imprisonment" means? Does it mean imprisonment with hard labour or simple imprisonment?
  Colonel SEELYThe only word used in the telegram I have received is "imprisonment."
  Mr. W. REDMONDBad enough.
  Mr. BELLOCCan the hon. Gentleman give us a pledge that this information he has promised will be given before the House rises?
  Colonel SEELYYes, of course. When I said we must wait for information I did not anticipate that the House would rise so rapidly.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDMay I ask whether we may expect this further information by cable or whether it is to be dispatched by post?
  Colonel SEELYWe shall receive every information by cable. I expect it has arrived already. Of course, we would have to have a good deal of further information before I can answer the important questions put to me to-day.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDBut there will be no delay?
  Colonel SEELYNo, there will be no delay.

  The Crown Agents' Office.
  Mr. SMEATONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the remarks contained in Paragraph 30 and the last sentence in Paragraph 32 of the Committee's Report on the Organisation of the Crown Agents' Office, His Majesty's Government regards itself as free from all responsibility in respect of loans arranged by the Crown Agents on behalf of any Crown Colony, or whether, in the last resort, His Majesty's Government guarantees all such loans; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to afford to Parliament adequate opportunities of reviewing the operations of the Crown Agents' Office?
  Colonel SEELYThe Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of the Crown Colonies, and loans cannot be raised by the Crown Agents on behalf of a Colony without his authority. But his responsibility does not extend to guaranteeing such loans. They are raised on the security of the revenues of the Colony concerned, and are not guaranteed by His Majesty's Government except in a few rare instances when such a guarantee has been specially sanctioned by Parliament. It is proposed that in future the accounts of the Crown Agents' Office should be published annually, and the Vote, which includes the Secretary of State's salary will afford an opportunity for calling attention to them.
  Mr. SMEATONMay I ask whether the Government, although they disclose responsibility for the guarantee, is not responsible for the terms?
  Colonel SEELYThat is a question of which I would ask for notice.

  General Hospital of Colombo.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the new rule issued by the principal medical officer of the general hospital of Colombo, prohibiting the admission of native Ceylonese to the paying planters' or passengers' wards; whether this is a violation of the declared objects in view when these wards were built and the practice which has hitherto been observed; whether the hospital is maintained out of public revenue; whether the surveyor and physicians and most of the nurses attached to the hospital are native Ceylonese; and what action he proposes taking in connection with the matter?
  Colonel SEELYThe hospital is maintained out of public revenue, and I believe that most of the staff are natives of Ceylon. I have no information regarding the introduction of the rule to which my hon. Friend refers, but the Governor will be asked for a report on the subject.

  District Railway Doors.
  Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the doors of the corridor electric trains of the District Railway have been clumsily altered, so that, while they have lost their automatic character, it is difficult for the public to open them; if he is also aware that the number of conductors working on these long trains is too small to enable them to help the public to work the doors; and if he will take steps to enforce the provision of better doors or more conductors, or both?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill)I have communicated with the railway company on this subject, and have received a reply, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
  Mr. BOWERMANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in these carriages at least 70 hanging straps have been provided for passengers who cannot find seating accommodation, and will he advise the company to provide more wooden seats instead?
  Mr. CHURCHILLI am afraid I cannot give any satisfactory answer to that.

  Communication Cords in Railway Carriages.
  Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the case of murderous outrage in a Midland Railway carriage on Wednesday, 24th February, in which the assaulted person vainly endea-

  1579
  voured to communicate with the guard; if he is aware that it is the common practice of railway companies to place communication cords so high in carriages that they are difficult to reach; and if he will make such regulations as shall ensure the provision of practicable means of communication in all trains?
  Mr. CHURCHILLI may remind my hon. Friend that the first effect of pulling the communication chain is to apply the automatic brake to the train, and in this case the railway company inform me that the driver of the train in question noticed that the communication chain had been pulled, and ran the train to the next station, which was less than a mile away. As regards the position of the chain in the carriage, I am advised that it cannot well be improved, as the chain could not run across the door of the compartment.

  French Tariff.
  Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the United States of America now enjoys all the minimum duties of the French tariff which we enjoy?
  Mr. CHURCHILLAll the products and manufactures of the United Kingdom are admitted into France at the rates of duty of the "Minimum Tariff." The products of the United States of America receive the minimum tariff rates on certain specified goods, of which I shall be happy to furnish a list to my hon. Friend if he so desires. Upon the rest a higher scale of duty is enforced than upon the corresponding products of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEYAre we to understand that the United States has been unable, by negotiations, to gain from the French as favourable terms as we have?
  Mr. CHURCHILLThat would appear to be the result.
  Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if the details of the proposed new French customs tariff show that it is directed against imports not only from this country, but from Germany, America, and other protectionist nations; whether he has yet received any evidence that protectionist countries are exercising any greater power in the decisions of the French Government in this matter than this country; and if he will state whether it is possible for Germany to secure from France a reduction of the proposed new iron and steel duties without our sharing in that reduction by virtue of the most-favoured-nation clause?
  Mr. CHURCHILLThe report of the Customs Commission of the French Chamber of Deputies which contains the new tariff proposals does not indicate that these proposals are directed especially against imports from any particular country. The report states, however, that the modification of the existing tariff has been rendered necessary by recent tariff changes in other European countries. I am not in a position to say how far the French Government may be influenced by representations from protectionist countries towards a modification of these proposals, but I know of no ground for thinking that such representations will receive greater consideration than will be accorded to the views of traders in this country. Full most-favoured-nation treatment in tariff matters is at present accorded by France to the products and manufactures of the United Kingdom. I have every reason to suppose that this country will continue to receive such treatment in the future, and will consequently enjoy the benefit of any reductions of duty, whether on iron and steel or on any other commodity which may be accorded to any third country.
  Mr. COCHRANEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence have had under their consideration the proposed new French tariff; and, if so, whether he will arrange to have their recommendations published?
  Mr. CHURCHILLThe Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence have had before them a summary of the opinions expressed by the principal Chambers of Commerce and Trade Associations with regard to the effect of the proposals put forward by the French Customs Commission. The proceedings of the Advisory Committee are confidential, and I do not think it desirable to publish the nature of their deliberations.
  Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he would state what is the amount of the duty payable in France upon the importation of British locomotives and American locomotives respectively?
  Mr. CHURCHILLLocomotives of ordinary gauge built in the United Kingdom, are dutiable on importation into France at the rate of 15 francs per 100 kilogrammes, the rate of duty on narrow gauge locomotives being 18 francs per 100 kilogrammes. The corresponding rates on locomotives built in the United States are 20 francs and 24 francs per 100 kilogrammes respectively.

  Scottish Universities (Grants).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken towards instituting the inquiry into the necessities of the Scottish universities, in view of the marked inferiority of the grants now made to these universities, compared with those for similar objects made to Ireland and Wales, and to the provincial colleges in England?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Committee to inquire into the needs of the Scottish Universities is now in course of formation, and that Lord Elgin has kindly consented to act as chairman. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be in a position to announce the names of the other members of the Committee.

  Houses of Parliament Bill.
  Mr. BYLESasked the Prime Minister if he can in any way hasten the consideration of the Houses of Parliament Bill with a view of meeting the claim of the public for re-admission to the public galleries of this House.
  The PRIME MINISTERI am sorry that the Houses of Parliament Bill appears to be regarded by some Members of the Opposition as a controversial measure, and that it has been blocked on every occasion that the second reading has been moved, and I regret that I see no prospect of finding any time for its consideration before 11 o'clock during the present month.
  Mr. BYLESDoes the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the outside public and our Constituents have a right to be present?
  The PRIME MINISTERYes, Sir, I fully recognise that.

  Hops Bill.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to reintroduce the Hops Bill of last Session?
  The PRIME MINISTERI am not in a position to make any statement at present.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHDoes the right hon. Gentleman hope in a short time to make a statement?
  The PRIME MINISTERI hope so.

  Margarine for Butter (Substitution).
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of prosecutions which have
  1582
  been instituted and the number of convictions obtained by the Board for the fraudulent substitution and sale of margarine for butter during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1908?
  Whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could state the number of prosecutions which have been instituted and the number of convictions obtained by his Department for the fraudulent substitution and sale of margarine for butter during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1908?
  Whether the President of the Local Government Board could state the number of prosecutions which have been instituted and the number of convictions obtained by the Board for the fraudulent substitution and sale of margarine for butter during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1908?
  And whether the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, could state the number of prosecutions which have been instituted and the number of convictions obtained by the Board for the fraudulent substitution and sale of margarine for butter during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1908?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr John Burns)Perhaps I may be allowed to answer these questions. None of the Departments referred to have instituted prosecutions of the kind mentioned. The matter would not come within the province of the Home Office or the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board or the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries could only act if they were of opinion that a particular local authority had failed to execute or enforce the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts in relation to butter, and that their failure affected the general interest of the consumer or the general interest of agriculture in the United Kingdom, as the case may be. I may add that Returns are received by the Local Government Board showing the number of samples of butter examined by the public analysts, and the number of cases in which proceedings are taken by the local authorities where the butter is found not to be genuine. The Returns for 1908, however, are not at present complete.
  Mr. KILBRIDEDoes not the Report of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department contain a paragraph to the effect that the legislation of the past two years dealing with margarine has not succeeded in stopping fraud?
  Mr. BURNSThat may be so.
  Mr. FLYNNIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Butter and Margarine Act of two years ago is largely inoperative because of the reluctance or inactivity of the various Departments in this country?
  Mr. BURNSNo.

  Decrease in Wages.
  Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he can give the total decrease in wages recorded by the Board of Trade for the year 1908, and the number of employees affected by such decrease.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of Trade (Mr. Churchill)Subject to revision, and excluding changes affecting agricultural labourers and certain other classes for which statistics are not yet available, the total net amount of the changes computed from the date of each change to the end of the year, was a decrease of £1,012,112, and the number of employees affected by decreases was 465,036.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERDo these figures apply only to skilled labour as represented by the trades unions, or do they cover unskilled labour as well?
  Mr. CHURCHILLI cannot say. They cover the whole area dealt with by the Board.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERDo they cover unskilled as well as skilled labour?
  Mr. CHURCHILLI think it is difficult to draw the line in these calculations; they cover the whole area. I have taken the figures from the ordinary sources.

  Ireland and Swine Fever.
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) why there are any restrictions on the importation of pigs from Ireland into England, as there is no swine fever in Ireland at present; and will he get such restrictions removed, if possible?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry)who answered the question, said: The restrictions referred to have force under certain Swine Fever Orders made some time ago by the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The question of the removal of such restrictions is one for the English Board of Agriculture, and I cannot undertake on behalf of the Irish Department to interfere with their discretion, but I regret to say that the position as regards swine fever in Ireland is less favourable than
  1584
  this question asumes, 158 outbreaks having been recorded in the country last year, and 4, so far, this year—the latest on 26th February.

  Sale of Margarine in Ireland.
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can state the number of prosecutions which have been instituted and the number of convictions obtained by the Department for the fraudulent substitution and sale of margarine for butter during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1908?
  Mr. CHERRYDuring the year 1908 there were purchased on behalf of the Department 920 samples sold as butter and 2 samples sold as margarine. Of the samples purchased as butter 6 proved on analysis to be margarine. Proceedings were instituted in respect of these samples and convictions were obtained in five cases.
  Mr. KILBRIDEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the figures that he has just read out apply to England or to Ireland, and whether he is aware that the Department in Ireland, when they want to take proceedings here to bring guilty parties to justice, finds it must act through some other Department of the Government, and whether it is proposed to allow the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture to prosecute for fraud committed in Irish products in this country?
  Mr. CHERRYI really must ask my hon. Friend to put down that question. I am only answering for my right hon. Friend the Vice-President, and have given all the information I have.
  Mr. FLYNNIs he furnished with information to show that the Act is inoperative owing to the fact that the Department allow the handling of margarine and butter to be carried on under the same roof?
  Mr. CHERRYI must ask for notice of that also.

  Coastguards.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what extra pay, if any, is given to coastguards whose duties are increased owing to the abolition of the coastguard stations adjoining their own?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. M'Kenna)There is no material increase of duties, and no extra pay is given in the cases referred to by the hon. Mem-

  1585
  ber, as it is not considered that any changes involved in the abolition of adjacent coastguard stations have rendered it desirable.
  Mr. COURTHOPEIs it not the fact that the length of coast patrolled is very largely increased owing to the abolition of some of the coastguard stations?
  Mr. M'KENNAIf the hon. Member will be so good as to give me notice of the question I will inquire.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked what length of notice is given to coastguards of their removal from one station to another?
  Mr. M'KENNANo special length of notice is given, and the period varies according to the circumstances of each case. In case of closing a station, the men are warned some months in advance of the probability of a station being closed.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked whether it is intended to make further reductions in the coastguard service?
  Mr. M'KENNAThe requirements of the coastguard service for the time being must govern the number of stations kept up.

  Norwegian Granite.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the names of the Scandinavian quarries from which granite has been taken in preference to granite from the Irish and British quarries on the ground that the Norwegian granite is cheaper than Irish and British granite, and the names of the persons having large pecuniary interests in the Norwegian quarries to which this preference has been given?
  Mr. M'KENNAThe Admiralty have not the information asked or.
  Mr. MacNEILLDid not the right hon. Gentleman tell me that he would inquire, and that there was no disposition to conceal the names?
  Mr. M'KENNAI do not know yet, and I do not think the contract has been given. I do not know which Norwegian or Scandinavian company is likely to get the contract. The contract is made by the contractors for the whole of the work, and with the Norwegian quarries and not by the Admiralty.
  Mr. PIRIE: Is it not the case that many of the owners of these Norwegian quarries are owners also of granite quarries in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. M`KENNAYes; I believe that is the case.
  Mr. PIRIEIs it not the case that the Norwegian quarry owners are at present employing skilled labour at a higher rate of wages than is paid in this country, and also that the reason why this contract will go to Norwegian quarry-owners, if it does go to them, is that the home quarry-owners have more remunerative contracts to carry out at home than the contract under discussion?
  Mr. M`KENNA: I cannot answer the last question; I have no knowledge of the contracts the home quarries have at present. I believe as a fact that the wages paid to skilled men by the Norwegian quarry-owners are higher than the wages paid at present in the home quarries.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In view of answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and in view of the facts stated by him that he believes it to be the fact that the contract for granite has not yet been made, will he now take steps to secure these orders for British producers?
  Mr. M`KENNAI think the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly aware of the procedure in these cases. The Admiralty give the contract as a whole for the whole work, and the contractor gets his materials wherever it suits him best. The contractor will no doubt in the execution of his contract endeavour to buy granite, but the duty of buying granite rests with the contractor, and not with the Admiralty.
  Mr. A. CHAMBERLAINI do not think the right hon. Gentleman has understood my question. The contractor would, of course, be perfectly willing to get his granite at home if the right hon. Gentleman will make it worth his while. My question is whether in view of the fact that the Government are spending themselves and urging municipalities to spend a great deal of public money in the effort to procure work for the unemployed, the Government will not endeavour to secure this work also for British employment?
  Mr. M'KENNAThe present Government, like the late Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, is a Free Trade Government. It has entered into this contract upon precisely the same principles that the right hon. Gentleman entered into contracts when he was at the Admiralty.
  Mr. LEIF JONESIf my right hon. Friend is going to adopt the suggestion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that no granite except British granite is to be used, will he also say that no granite from outside Westmorland is to be used?
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISIt it not the fact that the decision rested with the Admiralty and not with the contractor whether foreign or British granite should be used?
  Mr. M`KENNAIt no longer rests with the British Government. I have already stated that the contract on the Government side is already signed. Under that contract the contractor has offered to execute the work at a certain price provided he is allowed to use granite from whatever source he pleases, but he is prepared to execute the contract at £30,000 less than if he is compelled to use only British granite.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to whether it rested with the Admiralty.
  Mr. M'KENNAI have stated that it rested in the past with the Admiralty, and the Admiralty have given their decision.
  Mr. MacNEILLI understand this from the right hon. Gentleman's original answer to me, that no granite has been taken for this work from Scandinavian quarries.
  Mr. M'KENNAI cannot speak of my own knowledge, and I do not know what the contractor has done, but as the contract was only signed last week or this week, I assume he has not had time to select any place or to get granite from anywhere.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEROrder, order. We have already had a great many supplementary questions, and I think the time has come when notice should be given.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the granite for the new naval base at Rosyth is being imported ready dressed; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the granite dressed in this country, in view of the large number of masons out of work?
  Mr. M'KENNAThe matter is entirely in the hands of the contractor.
  Mr. STEPHEN COLLINSIs it not the fact that Norwegian granite was not only supplied, but supplied ready dressed, from Norway for the erection of the offices of the "Morning Post," the principal organ of the Tariff Reform League?
  Mr. RENWICKCan the right hon. Gentleman state the difference in cost of granite dressed in this country and in Norway?
  Mr. M`KENNAI do not know the cost, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of it I will inquire.
  Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEYDoes the right hon. Gentleman now fully understand the way in which duties on raw materials find their way into tariffs?
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISMay I ask if this granite is to be dressed in this country, he will see that it is dressed by British and not Norwegian labour?

  Fleet (Night Attacks).
  Mr. LUPTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what precautions are now taken every night against an attack upon the Fleet when anchored at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Dover, or elsewhere, by foreign torpedo-boats; and if he has now adopted the plan of picquet boats, provided with searchlights, patrolling the sea some miles in advance of the Fleet, to give notice of the approach of foreign war vessels in time for the anchored Fleet to prepare for defence?
  Mr. M`KENNAThe Admiralty are not prepared to state what precautions are taken against torpedo attack.
  Mr. LUPTONI take it that the Admiralty does not take the precautions mentioned in the question?
  Mr. M'KENNANo, Sir; the hon. Gentleman must not infer anything of the kind.
  Mr. LUPTONMay I take it that the Admiralty does take the precautions?
  Mr. M'KENNANo, Sir, the hon. Gentleman must not infer anything.

  Navy Estimates.
  Mr. ELLISTo ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when he expects to lay the Navy Estimates upon the table?
  Mr. M`KENNAI hope that the Navy Estimates will be in the hands of hon. Members by Saturday morning, 13th March.

  Royal Dockyards (Piece Work).
  Mr. JENKINSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his Board has issued an order reducing the piece-work rates of the skilled labourers in His Majesty's Dockyards by 4 per cent., the amount by which the piece-work rates were increased when an advance of 1s. a day was given on the day rates; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the order withdrawn?
  Mr. M'KENNANo such order as that implied in the question has been issued. In the cases in which skilled labourers are mainly affected the 4 per cent. increase in piece-work rates granted in 1906 has been embodied in amended schedules of piece-

  1589
  work rates. Some instructions have recently been issued in regard to the calculation of their share of the piece-work earnings when skilled labourers are working on piece-work with mechanics, but this is a small administrative detail by which the skilled labourers get the full increased weekly pay plus piece-rates based thereon.
  Mr. JENKINSMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the skilled labourers were consulted when the rates were revised as to the revision?
  Mr. M`KENNAI cannot say whether they were consulted or not, but I have inquired, and I am told that so far from being detrimental to them it would be a great advantage.

  Children on Licensed Premises.
  Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to proposals which have been made to establish waiting rooms for children on licensed premises; and whether, having regard to the intention of this House, expressed in the Children Act, to keep children out of public-houses, he intends to take any action in the matter?
  The HOME SECRETARY (Mr. Gladstone)My attention has not been drawn to the proposal mentioned in the question, but I would point out that the Children Act prohibits only the presence of children in an open drinking bar or any part of licensed premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors.
  Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if these proposals which have been made are put, into practice, he will immediately introduce legislation to prevent children being taken into public-houses at all?
  Mr. GLADSTONEI have already said that I do not know to what proposals my hon. Friend has alluded.

  Suffragist Agitation.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the words of Mr. Cecil Chapman, metropolitan magistrate, on 18th February, that he was not inclined to preach the virtues of patience and contentment to women who had realised their just right to vote, and that everyone recognised the right of women to vote except the men who desired to keep them from political independence; and whether, having regard to this expression of opinion from a member
  1590
  of the bench of magistrates who, in the discharge of their duties, have had to deal with cases arising out of the Suffragist agitation, and the purely political character of the offences with which the ladies now undergoing imprisonment are charged, he will see his way to advise their removal from the second to the first class of misdemeanants?
  Mr. REESBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers that question in regard to, the last two lines, will he not consider the removal of magistrates who preach politics from the bench?
  Mr. GLADSTONEI am informed, through the Chief Magistrate, that the remarks made by Mr. Chapman were absolutely and entirely dissociated from anything connected with what are known as militant methods. They were not misunderstood by the audience, but the report separated them from their context. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to my former answers on this subject.
  Mr. HUGH LAWIn reference to the last part of his answer or want of answer, may I ask whether there does not exist at present a regulation for the removal of political prisoners as shown by the case of the persons engaged in the Jameson Raid, and are we to take it that an armed raid or incursion into neutral territory is a less serious offence than disobedience to the Prime Minister and the Police?
  Mr. GLADSTONEThese questions are not on the Paper to-day, but they were on a former occasion, and I have nothing to add to my answer.
  Mr. REESDoes the right hon. Gentleman defend making of remarks of this nature by magistrates?
  Mr. GLADSTONEI have given my answer. According to what I am informed the chief magistrate, Mr. Chapman said the ommission of the context gave a misleading character to what he said. I think myself it is very undesirable that magistrates should make speeches.
  Mr. DILLONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a magistrate in Ireland made such a speech he would be removed from the Bench immediately?

  Cabs and Taximeters.
  Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the difficulty passengers so often find in ascertaining cab fares, he will consider the advisability of compelling all cabs in the London district to be fitted with taximeters?
  Mr. GLADSTONEAll motor cabs are required to carry a taximeter. The experiment of fixing them on horsed cabs has been tried, and for the time has proved a failure. I do not think I should be warranted in taking any action at present to compel their use.

  Inebriates Acts.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the Home Secretary whether before introducing a Bill to amend the Inebriates Acts, he will consider the desirability of collecting evidence, whether by means of a Select Committee or otherwise, as to the efficacy of some of the methods of drug-treatment in the cure of inebrity?
  Mr. GLADSTONEThe recent Departmental Committee advised that "no good purpose could be served by making a further or more extended investigation into the value of existing methods for treatment of inebriety by the use of drugs." I concur in that opinion, and am not prepared to delay legislation, which is urgently required.

  Irish Postal Clerks' Association.
  Mr. NANNETTII beg to ask the Postmaster-General a question, of which I have given him private notice, whether it is a fact that he has withdrawn from the Irish Postal Clerks' Association that official recognition which they have hitherto enjoyed; whether he has ordered that no memorial or representation from the men's association in regard to their grievances are to he entertained; whether he has ordered the heads of departments not to see the men, not to answer their letters of complaint, and also not to let the usual notices appertaining to their organisation to be posted; whether he has not been aware that for many years the greatest misunderstanding has prevailed between the heads of the department and the staff, and whether, in view of the tension which now prevails, he persists in breaking up the men's organisation, which is the only channel open to them to bring their grievances before the public; and further, if the interference with the free and open discussion in the official organ of the Association is not an interference with the liberty of the Press?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Buxton)The facts are as stated in the first part of the question. Personal attacks on supervising officers, of a character that I could not overlook, have appeared from time to time in the official organ of the association in question. It has been necessary, therefore, to draw the
  1592
  attention of the Association to these articles, and to ask for an explanation. No explanation of a satisfactory nature was forthcoming. In these circumstances, and in existing conditions, there was no course open to me but, to my great regret, to decline to continue to extend official recognition to the I.P.C.A. It is, of course, open to the Association to reconsider their position. I must point out, in regard to the latter part of the question, that the non-recognition of the Association in no way interferes with the full right of any officer to bring before me any grievance that he desires me to consider.
  Mr. NANNETTIIs not the complaint which is made against the Association that they have criticised the action of the officials placed over them, and that these articles have appeared in the official organ? And is it not within the right of those officials if they avail themselves of the courts to take the ordinary course of legal proceedings against them without depriving them of their civil rights?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONAs I have said, these were attacks in this paper, belonging to the Association, on supervising officers. I am sure there is no objection whatever to free criticism in regard to these matters, but they were of such a character that they really could not continue under those circumstances. As a matter of fact, I understand with regard to one of them the particular officer in question has brought an action.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI really cannot allow any more questions on this subject.
  Mr. W. REDMONDThis is a serious matter.
  Mr. NANNETTIIn view of the serious step that is taken against a public organisation, will the right hon. Gentleman have copies of his letters and copies of the article laid on the Table of the House, so that an enquiry may be held into the whole matter?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI must appeal to the House in regard to this matter. The question was never shown to me, and I have not seen it, and I do not think it is an urgent question.
  Mr. W. REDMONDIt is.
  Mr. NANNETTII went to the chair and showed you a newspaper containing a full account of the matter, and I showed you the question. You had not time to read them, of course, but I got your per-

  1593
  mission to take the steps I am taking. I feel it is such a serious matter to my Constituents that I believe it is my right to bring the question before the House.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThis is really degenerating into a debate, and I cannot allow it.
  Mr. W. REDMONDI beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a matter of definite urgent public importance, namely, the action of the head of the Post Office Department in refusing to recognise the constitutionally established association of the Post Office employees in Ireland.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERObviously that is not a question of urgency.
  Mr. W. REDMONDI beg to give notice in consequence of the impossibility of raising this matter now that my hon. Friend and other Members will take the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the Postmaster-General to this matter, and to urge upon him the view that the action which the Post Office has taken is likely to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction and disarrangement of the public service.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURMay I ask the Prime Minister to give us some estimate of the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTERI propose on Monday Committee of Supply on Army Votes A and 1. On Tuesday, 9th March, in the earlier part of the sitting I shall bring forward a Motion to enable the Supply of the year to be obtained by the end of the present month. The Government do not desire that discussion should be unduly curtailed, and we believe the suspension of the 11 o'clock rule for Supply Votes during the present month will be the most convenient way of securing the Supply. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Do hon. Gentlemen prefer the guillotine? I trust it will not be necessary to have prolonged sittings, but having regard to the Votes which must be passed to enable the Royal Assent to be given to the Consolidated Fund Bill on the 30th, it must be apparent that we have no alternative. After that Motion on Tuesday we propose to take the Report of the Army Votes A and 1, and on Wednesday to continue that stage. On Thursday we shall take the Civil Service Estimates, and the Vote on Account.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the Bill to be founded on the Ways and Means Resolution taken yesterday. When does he propose to take that?
The PRIME MINISTERWe take the Report of the Resolution to-day, and the various stages of the Bill will be taken de die in diem after 11 o'clock.
Mr. A. CHAMBERLAINI think it was stated that the Navy Estimates would be out on Saturday the 13th. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure that they shall be circulated to Members on that day? Extracts from the Army votes appeared in the evening papers before they were circulated to Members. Of course, the object of having them out on Saturday is that Members may study them either on Saturday or Sunday.
The PRIME MINISTERI will do my best to provide hon. Members with Sunday reading. We will circulate them on Saturday effectively.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented and read a first time:—
MR. CHIOZZA-MONEY—Continuation Schools.—Bill to provide for the establishment of compulsory continuation schools. (To be read a second time, 23rd April.)
MR. CHURCHILL——London Electric Supply.—Bill to constitute the London County Council the purchasing authority in respect of the undertakings of certain Electric Lighting Companies in London to which the London Electric Supply Act, 1908, does not apply, and for purposes incidental thereto. (To be read a second time, 5th March.)
MR. BRAMSDON—Oaths.—Bill to facilitate the administration of Oaths by uplifted hand. (To be read a second time, 9th March.)
MR. JAMES MASON—Payment of Rates.—Bill to regulate the payment of Rates when made by the owner instead of the occupier. (To be read a second time, 11th March.)
MR. SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Places of Worship (Enfranchisement).—Bill to authorise the enfranchisement of the sites of Places of Worship held under lease. (To be read a second time, 18th March.)
MR. GEORGE THORNE—Public Health (Provisional Orders).—Bill to amend The Public Health Act, 1875, in relation to Provisional Orders. (To be read a second time, 18th March.)

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1909–10.

  VOTES A and I.
  On the Motion to go into Committee of Supply (Army Estimates),
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane)My task in making the statement, which is usual on this motion, is in some respects a lighter one than on former occasions. For better or for worse the plans of the Government for Army Reform have been fully framed and the foundations laid. What I have to do today is to lay before the House some account of the progress made and being made in building upon those foundations. Before I go to the question of organisation I may perhaps usefully say something about the numbers and condition of the troops. We have had this year a singularly good year as regards recruiting. We have enlisted for the regular battalions and units upwards of 2,250 men more than in the previous year. What the causes of that are it would be difficult to say. Doubtless the difficulty of finding employment assisted, but I think that is not the only reason. The progress is not progress which has been made by any sudden start. It was manifested in previous years, and I put it down to this, that both the late Government and this Government have devoted increasing attention to the care of the soldier and the provision for his well-being. There is no doubt the Army is becoming a much more popular occupation than it was some time ago, and I trust some of the reasons which make it unpopular have been effectively extirpated.
  Then I pass to the special reserve. For that, too, the recruiting has been very good. When the force was new recruiting was a little slow, but of late it has been much more rapid than recruiting for the old militia. The result is that a large number of the units are quite full, and others are rapidly filling up, out of an establishment of about 80,000, part of which is composed of men in category B, whom we cannot obtain until a little later on, we have upwards of 70,000. That is to say, the artillery and the infantry are filling up very steadily, and we are in sight of the full establishment for all these units. There again the quality of the recruit is, as far as we can judge—it is too soon to be quite sure—quite up to the level of the old militia recruit. In one sentence or two of the Report of the Director of Recruiting says this, at Page 83: "The recruits of the special
  1596
  reserve are generally well reported on. In several instances it was stated that a class of recruits was coming in who would not have enlisted in the militia, and the standard of education in many details is considered higher than that of the militia recruit, and recruits are readily availing themselves of the facilities afforded of obtaining instruction at the depot." The army schoolmasters have played a conspicuously large part of late. It is remarkable what a large number of men we take who, notwithstanding the great progress which has been made in elementary education, are illiterate. Of the recruits 13½ per cent. are what may be called illiterate, that is to say, they could hardly be said to have been taught to read or write. But the army schoolmaster, an official whom I have come to appreciate more and more as I have got to know the inside working of the machinery, has effected a great deal. Some 32,000 soldiers obtained certificates of education last year, and this House may know that only those who were in need of those certificates went in for them.
  I should like to say a word as to what we owe to those militia officers who came over and joined the special reserve. They worked splendidly in bringing up the training of the new force to the pitch of efficiency which I believe it has attained. I pass from the regular forces and the special reserve to the territorial forces. I do not know how far the House is curious on this subject, but there has undoubtedly been—shall I make the word "boom" parliamentary, and say a great boom in territorial forces. Perhaps the House would like to know exactly what the result of that boom has been. What was the state of things when the dust and smoke cleared away? On the 1st of January this year there were 199,059 non-commissioned officers and men, and there were 8,573 officers. That was a total of 207,652 out of an establishment of about 313,000. In the last 7 weeks and 3 days ending the 25th of February the numbers had risen to 228,754 non-commissioned officers and men and 8,807 officers; that is to say, 237,561 in all; that is an increase of some 30,000. And from what we know of the recruiting that has gone since, the House may safely take it that there is a force of over 240,000 to-day. There has been an exodus amounting to 3,853 in that period. No doubt this force is getting over to some extent the prejudice that is in people's mind about soldiering. because I find that a large num-

  1597
  ber of those who joined the territorial forces left them to go into the regulars and the special reserve—not a great number, but a substantial number. Deducting these we get the real accession of numbers in the 7 weeks and 3 days, as over 33,000.
  There is one other point which I may mention in this connection. Some persons were concerned—I was not very much myself—about the men who had engaged for only one year. There were 86,000 of them, and some people feared lest they should go. Out of that 86,000 already, although they had still nearly a month to consider the matter, 33,302 had re-engaged in varying periods from one to four years. The percentage on the 1st January of non-commissioned officers and men was 65.8, and on the 25th February it was 75.7. The percentage of officers rose from 75.6 on the 1st January to 78.2 per cent. on the 25th February. I do not know whether the House is curious enough on this matter to wish to know what may be called the order of merit in recruiting in the various parts of the country. At the beginning of the year London lagged hopelessly behind, but London has put on a spurt, and although it is not first past the winning post, it is very nearly first. The first districts are these wonderful midland districts, the north midland and the south midland—84.3 in the north midland and 84 per cent. in the south midland. Next comes London with 80 per cent. as against 54 per cent. 7 weeks before. Next is the eastern counties district with 79.2 per cent. Next is Yorkshire and Northumberland with 74.5. After that Lancashire with 74. The Highland division is 73.3. The home counties division is 72.7. The Welsh division is 72.5. The south-western district in England, what is called the Wessex district, is 72.4. Finally, at the end is my native region, South Scotland, which is 70.2 per cent. However, there was a magnificent meeting in Edinburgh last night, which aroused great enthusiasm, and I trust we shall improve those figures.
  These are the figures, and I want to say something about them. They have meant a very remarkable movement, a very remarkable waking up. There are those who criticise what are called the modern methods of recruiting. I should be very ungrateful personally if I did not acknowledge my obligation to the "Daily Mail" and a number of other papers, and to the group of employers of labour who

  1598
  have helped. I will tell hon. Members why. Owing to the weakness of the auxiliary forces the nation was never nearer to thinking seriously of compulsory service. This movement has verified what was my own anticipation that the nation was perfectly capable of taking care of itself under a voluntary system without resorting to anything of that sort. It has established a bulwark between the country and compulsion far stronger than any bulwark that existed before. I say, therefore, we should be grateful to those who have been earnest enough about the matter to assist in making voluntary service a reality and a success in this country. Now I wish to say a word or two about the health and well-being of the troops. I do not go into the figures of the wastage, though a remarkable diminution is shown in the statement which has been circulated. There is no department of the Army to which we owe more than to the Army medical service. It was started by Mr. Brodrick in 1902, and has gone on continuously ever since, growing on the lines which he laid down, and the effect of it is that the wastage, not only in war but in peace has diminished in the most remarkable way under the direction of Sir Alfred Keogh, to whom the Army owes a great deal in this regard as the Director-General of the medical service in the Army.
  There has been a very great improvement progressively in the last 6 or 7 years in the health of the troops. For instance there has been a very great decrease in the number of those invalided out compared with what it used to be. Then there has been a great decline in what I may call preventible diseases, and in places like the Mediterranean, largely owing to the work of men like Col. Sir D. Bruce and other officers in the Army medical service, Mediterranean fever and other diseases like that have almost completely disappeared. We have got to another stage, and that is inoculation against enteric. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford will be happy to know that our inoculations are all voluntary; but the result of that system as far as it has gone has been a remarkable diminution in the number of patients suffering from enteric disease, and very much brighter conditions for those on duty.
  Mr. LUPTONCan the right hon. Gentleman provide me with the details from which he gathered those statements?
  Mr. HALDANEI knew I had done a rash thing. I will provide my hon. Friend

  1599
  with full details. The most recent changes that have been made in the case of medical development are the Malaria Commission, which is doing very good work, and the organisation of the work of the Antienteric Inoculation Committee, and a very valuable Committee of Experts of very high standing, who have been sitting to inquire into the physiological effects with regard to the food and training and clothing of the soldier. They have remodelled the system of training under conditions which not only render it better, but get rid of the awful disease which we used to have in the Army called soldier's heart, which was no doubt due to the stretching of the heart due to the somewhat exaggerated mode of training. There are other things that have been done. The question of sanitary training of officers is most important, so that going on the field there should be officers who would know exactly what should be done in the way of providing conditions which would make disease unlikely. With that object examinations for sanitary purposes have been introduced for lieutenants on promotion. There are one or two minor matters which I may mention. A curious thing used to be the number of rejections of recruits because of the defective condition of their teeth. We thought that that could be to some extent obviated. Some money was taken in the Estimate for seeing whether we could in the district treat recruits for their teeth so as to make them capable of passing the medical test. About 3,500 recruits who would have been rejected last year on account of defective teeth have had them put right at a cost of 6s. 8d. each, and have been able to enlist. We also succeeded in treating 3,500 other men actually serving at a cost of 5s. 9d. each to the taxpayer. I need not trouble the House with other details. There have been various improvements in the Army medical service which have been made during the year, but I will not go into that matter now. I want to come at once to the broad question of organisation, and the changes we propose to make in organisation this year upon the foundation of which I have already spoken.
  The object, of course, of organisation in an army is rapid and effective mobilisation, and that is a difficult and expensive business. Our policy has been to cut off every superfluous item, to ask why each man is there, and what each item is for, and to make the test rapid mobilisation. We have had to deal with questions of very great difficulty, and perhaps the
  1600
  newest question is the horse question. Passing that by for the moment with a view to coming back to it again, the principles which are applying are broadly these: To put everything we safely can on a Reserve footing—that is the only way, and it is the common practice of Continental nations; in the second place, to prepare and establish complete machinery for bringing up the Reserves and providing for the wastage of war. Time is all important in these things, and the machine must be as perfect as you can make it. As to the Infantry, the work is done. For better or for worse, the House knows what we have done for the Infantry in putting special Reserve Battalions behind the Regular Battalions. But the Cavalry were untouched. The Cavalry have the same organisation that they had in the war. The Reserve squadron, which is a machine for training drafts, broke down during the war in South Africa. We propose to apply to the cavalry precisely the same principles as we have applied to the infantry—that is to say, we wish to give the regiment a depot, just as the infantry have got their depots. The cavalry regiments are linked. The regiment at home trains drafts for the regiment abroad, but, unfortunately, there is no depot, and the result is that the depots are carried on the backs of the headquarters of the regiments. To illustrate how defective the present organisation is, the clothing of the cavalry reservists is at Pimlico. What a bad state of things that is for mobilisation. The proper course is to have it at the depot. You do not want a depot for every two cavalry regiments, one being abroad, but you do want a depot for each small group of regiments. We propose to group the Hussars, Dragoons, and Lancers together, and we propose to make six cavalry depots, one in each command, which should be the depot each of a small group. This is a particularly opportune time for that, as, owing to the withdrawal of troops from South Africa, we have 14 cavalry regiments at home linked with 14 abroad. Therefore, we can very easily at this moment proceed with that grouping, and that is what we propose to do. The depots will also serve for centres for the training of the Territorial Yeomanry. There will be a staff there who will be capable of bringing the Yeomanry into relation with the regular cavalry, and there will be a point of contact between them which there has never yet been, and we believe that will be found very useful by the Yeomanry. The whole thing has been worked out by the Army Council, with the

  1601
  assistance of a committee organised by Sir Charles Douglas, and having upon it General Douglas Haig and other distinguished cavalry officers, and I believe it, as far as I can judge, to be a good organisation. We also propose to add to every regiment a reserve of trained horses. We spread that over three years. We propose to take a brigade and to add 50 this year to each of four regiments. These horses will be on a peculiar footing. They will be highly trained horses—very good horses, but they are not wanted all the year round. They are to be with the regiment when they are wanted, but when they are not wanted, when there is no manœuvring and no training, we propose that they should fulfil that function which is often so much advertised for when you see in the papers that a lady, highly educated and skilled, desires a comfortable home, where she will receive her board and lodgings in exchange for light services. These highly trained horses will lodge out with farmers and others for whom they will do certain light work in exchange for their bed and board, and they will be so organised in accordance with an idea, which, like other ideas in Army matters, was made in Germany. This system has worked very well on the Continent, and we see no reason why it should not work here. It is economical, and it enables us to give at a small cost a considerable addition to the horses of the cavalry.
  I may summarise very shortly what we propose to do with the cavalry. As regards machinery for the mobilisation of the cavalry, the cavalry will in future be upon the same footing as the rest of the Army. Thus cavalry depots will be formed where reservists will rejoin, and be clothed, armed, and equipped for mobilisation. These depots will also form permanent recruiting centres for certain cavalry regiments, and the recruits will be clothed and armed at them. They will also form schools for the Yeomanry of the command. On mobilisation a certain number of reserve regiments will at once be formed at the depot. These regiments will correspond to the existing third reserve battalions of the infantry of the line, and therefore the old reserve squadron will disappear. In the event of the expeditionary force being sent abroad the reserve regiments will occupy the barracks vacated by the regiments of the expeditionary force. The institution of the cavalry depots will render the existing reserve squadrons with regiments unnecessary. These reserve squadrons will be absorbed, partly in the
  1602
  depots and partly into the reserve service squadrons. The total establishment of the cavalry will remain approximately as before—perhaps a little higher. So much for the cavalry.
  I now come to a more difficult subject, on which I have to confess to the House a modification of view—I mean the artillery. The original difficulty with the artillery was that we were short of men for mobilisation; we could only have mobilised a very few batteries of what was requisite for giving their proper equipment to the troops. We have now got the numbers to mobilise, but we have not got them at present in the best possible organisation, and I will tell the House exactly what has been the reason of a certain change of plan. When I took office I found some 13,000 or 14,000 militia garrison artillery, and I thought they could be used to form a special reserve of the artillery for the ammunition columns, and possibly even for assisting the brigade column. They were very fine men, and did their best, and I did my best; but they had one peculiarity which made it difficult—they were largely composed of fishermen, and fishermen appear to have an invincible objection to mounting a horse. I am not without sympathy with them, but that did not enable me to take account of that difficulty effectively, and the result is that I am convinced that we shall not get enough men to ride—and of course artillerymen must be able to ride—from that source to provide what we want. We considered this thing very very closely. The Army Council has been over it, and Sir Charles Douglas, the Adjutant-General—whom I regret to say we shall lose in the summer when he goes to his new command; he is a man who has rendered us very great service—Sir Charles Douglas worked out an organisation with which we are satisfied at the War Office Under our old plan we proposed to get 14,800 on a regular basis and 15,000 of these special reservists. The 14,800 were men on a six years' basis; they were more than we required to provide the drafts, but owing to the length of their service they did not provide a reserve very rapidly. Therefore we proposed to take 15,000 special reservists. We found the training brigades could not train as many as 15,000, and we should have to increase the training brigades if we were to get that number of recruits. Moreover, we found 15,000 a large number of recruits to ask for the artillery, because, though we could get them quite easily, it had the tendency to affect recruiting for the infantry.

  1603
  Therefore what we propose to do is this: Our idea at that time was off the 14,800 to strike 2,400 men, who would be gradually replaced by the special reserve men; but we propose now to keep nearly all the regular artillerymen whom we have in view, only that we deal with them in this way. We need to give us drafts for abroad 9,600, and, as we want long service for abroad, we propose to take the 9,600 on a six-years basis, like the artillery are at present; 5,000, bringing the figure up to 14,600 we propose to take, on what is called the Lansdowne principle, that is to say, combining long service and short service in one battalion, the long service to find the drafts, and the short service to make the reserve all in one battalion. We propose to take 5,000 on a three-years basis, which will give us a very large reserve very cheaply. In that way we shall be able to reduce what we require for special reserve to 12,000 in the first instance; afterwards to 9,000, as the reserve grows up, and ultimately to 6,000. As the reserve builds itself up, we reduce the number of special reserves, but we never reduce it below 6,000. I do not know that I need to go into details, but we require to mobilise the artillery on a war footing, and keep it alive for six months, 38,000 men for the special reserve and regulars; and this will give us 40,000. We have left a margin of 2,000. Therefore, we have got ample in this to enable us to do what we want. There is a special reason why it is important to carry this organisation out. The General Staff have been surveying our artillery establishments. They are not satisfied that we have got the right proportion of howitzers. They are satisfied it is essential for efficiency in war that each division should have a battery of howitzers attached to it in addition to the two batteries that it has at the present time. In other words, we propose to add two brigades of howitzers to the artillery. I will tell the House in a moment why. The organisation of that large mass of Special Reservists was on the old garrison militia basis. The garrison militia units were converted into the field special reserve units, to be kept at headquarters as units separate from the normal organisation of the artillery as one single Royal regiment. We propose to make them an integral part of the special reserve. As the infantry becomes on mobilsation part of the Regular infantry, so we propose that the special reserve of artillerymen should henceforth be part of the
  1604
  Royal Regiment of Artillery. We propose to give their junior officers and officers below field rank the rank of special reserve officers of the Regular Army. They will be trained at a depot, or rather, I should say a training brigade, instead of at their existing headquarters. That this is necessary I am convinced. Some of the officers of the Field Artillery Reserve—as it was—some of the lieutenant-colonels here came to me and said: "We cannot carry on the force. Our recruits come from a distance, and our regiments are losing their local character, and the result is that it is no longer an interest to us to have in Cornwall recruits who come from London. We consider it better and more economical to follow the pattern of the Regular Army and have one single Royal Regiment of Artillery for the future, with its special reserve, and the officers in it belonging to the special reserve of officers in that regiment."
  In connection with the senior officers, the lieut.-colonels and majors, we propose to pass a Special Army Order, giving them honorary rank and passing them to the old reserve of officers. That will recognise their position and what they have done. The effect of it all I may sum up very shortly, as I did before. It is this: The artillery of the expeditionary force will be increased by two howitzer brigades, thus allowing an howitzer brigade of three batteries for each of the six divisions. Hitherto a division has had two howitzer brigades only, and the existing four howitzer brigades had to be partially broken up on mobilization and two new ones formed. An addition of two brigades will obviate this being done in the future. On the other hand, the addition of two howitzer brigades to the expeditionary force will leave us with nine brigades surplus to the requirements of the expeditionary force. The House sees there eleven training brigades. Two of them have become howitzer brigades. That leaves nine. Nine training brigades will be fully utilised on mobilization in providing the necessary training machinery for the draft of the artillery unit in the expeditionary force. You must always keep training brigades at home. They correspond, therefore, to the Reserve regiments of the cavalry, as we propose they shall be, and Reserve battalions of the infantry organisation. In peace six of these surplus brigades will be used as training brigades for the Special Reserve.

  1605
  We shall come to that by degrees. But six of them will be about enough to have to train about 1,000 each, and to hold as a special reserve. The transformation will be gradual, because we shall have slowly built up the reserve out of the new 5,000 three year's men. These nine brigades will be fully utilised on mobilisation. Like the cavalry the field artillery will also have six depots in the future—one, depot in each command, with the training brigade affiliated to and stationed close to each. These six depots will, on mobilisation, fulfil exactly the same functions as the depots of the other arms. For various reasons which have been already submitted, the Royal Field Reserve Artillery will be reduced in establishment from about 15,000, at which it now stands, to 12,000 in the near future, and ultimately to 6,000, 5,000 three years' men being raised with a view to meet the deficiency caused by the reduction in the Royal Field Reserve Artillery of the Army. The existing 31 corps of the Royal Field Reserve Artillery will, for all purposes of administration and training, be wholly merged in the training brigades. Is is a very much better organisation than any we have had, and, as far as I can judge, having turned it over from every point of view, it looks to me as if we had got to the bedrock of something that will not break down. It has been thoroughly discussed by the best artillery experts in the country, and they all wish it well. I hope the House will approve it, particularly as I have stated, novel as it is, it effects a very substantial saving on the cost to the country of the old artillery organisation. What you get is six batteries of howitzers, and, in addition, what you have now, a large reserve for mobilisation.
  Mr. A. LEEWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether in this process of reorganisation the existing field artillery units disappear?
  Mr. HALDANERegular units?
  Mr. LEEYes.
  Mr. HALDANEOh, no. On the contrary, they will increase, because three at least of these training brigades which now provide a special reserve, will become brigades of regulars, and will be kept for an emergency. It will also allow the brigades to be kept at home in order to provide drafts for abroad. That will be exactly the same as every regular brigade. Consequently on a great emergency they have got their
  1606
  guns and men, and would be available for service. The next thing I come to is a very short one—the training of the engineers. We have considered it rather closely, and we have come to the conclusion that the existing establishment of the Royal Engineers at home is too low to admit of the units being properly trained. We have the opportunity of bringing them up to the level that is required to make the strength sufficient for training, owing to the Engineers brought home from South Africa. We propose to utilise these in this way: we increase the number of the Royal Engineers available for peace training, partly by absorbing at home the full company drawn from South Africa, and partly by increasing the Home establishment. The increase in the latter will be 338 non-commissioned officers and men.
  Then the next thing I come to is the Royal Army Medical Corps. That is a thing which has given me most concern for mobilisation. As the House knows from the official statement, we have got the whole of the fighting men. We have got everything except a certain part of what I call the aneillary units. The Army Medical Corps bothered us very much until we thought of doing this. We have got a lot of surplus infantry reservists at this moment—far more than we have need for mobilisation. Well, it became clear that these men were very well trained, and they are capable of being converted, after a very short medical training, into very useful bearers and men for the Army Medical Corps. We tried it with a thousand first, and found it exceedingly popular, and the numbers filled up at once. We are now taking another thousand, so that we get 2,000 Reservists coming from the colours to take training for three months at Aldershot and become trained men, available for being drafted on mobilisation to the Army Medical Corps. It has been successful. We are also raising the requisite number of men in other ways.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURYour reserve automatically diminishes.
  Mr. HALDANEBy that time the Army Medical Corps will have been formed.
  Mr. BALFOURIt is an interim arrangement?
  Mr. HALDANEYes. Even if our reserve got to the normal we should still have enough at the right time.
  Then we are also forming depots in case of war. We have got a definite scheme under which there will be six convalescent

  1607
  depots in the United Kingdom in the event of the expeditionary force being dispatched abroad. This will be in charge of the medical authorities. Then the House knows that Sir Alfred Keogh also worked out a very remarkable scheme for the Territorial Force, under which there will be 23 hospitals for the reception of the sick, should the mobilisation of the Territorial Force take place. The next thing I come to is the Army Service Corps. There we are reviewing the establishment. Hitherto the establishment has never been scientifically considered, but we are now reviewing all possible operations, and, taking the maximum, we get some idea of what the Army Service Corps should consist of. It is vital that we should get a proper Army Service Corps. We have a short service Army Service Corps, which is beginning to produce a reserve, and will produce a very large one in course of time. Here again we are taking in men ad interim, and in various ways we hope to get everything we require. We could manage just now if we were put to the pinch, because we have the service of Army reservists. But we want to get it into perfect shape, and for that purpose, not only have we to review the possible requirements, but also another question, and that is how much of the work should be done by the horse transport and how much by mechanical transport. It is a new idea. Last year we made a beginning. The Army Council found it working well, but are also satisfied that it is quite insufficient. Therefore, in the Estimates for the coming year we make provision for three more service companies, corresponding reductions taking place, of course, in horse transport. This will be sufficient to equip the six divisions of the expeditionary force. We have no doubt we can get the men without any difficulty. The whole thing is so new; we are in the experimental stage. I shall have more to say about it later.
  The great difficulty of our Army Service Corps is that the kind of transport applied differs in various parts of the world in which you are fighting. For India, the transport here would be of no use at all, and we should not think of sending it there. In Africa it was, and would be quite different if we had to go there again. It varies according to the country you are in. We are studying the requirements of the countries where we should be most likely to need a large Army Service Corps and proving it in accordance
  1608
  with the requirements of those countries. We are, also, particularly in reference to Home defence, engaged in another process. A little time ago, only last January, some very interesting trials of motor-omnibus traction for troops were carried out in Essex by the general officer commanding in chief of the Eastern Command. Those trials were conducted under Service conditions, as far as possible. Fortunately, the roads were in a very bad state, the weather was very foggy, so that we had a good test. They turned out very well. The omnibuses, to the number of 24, were supplied by the London General Omnibus Company. They left the depot in the early morning and arrived at Warley Barracks at 8 a.m., where 500 men, in heavy-marching order, with their quota of officers, were embarked, with all necessary ammunition, a day's cooked food, tools, one day's reserve supplies as well as machine gun with its ammunition. Two of the omnibuses were equipped as ambulances. The whole thing was carried out under a general idea which required the rapid reinforcement of the Shoeburyness garrison, and the battalion, moving in two columns, reached Shoeburyness by noon, which was very good.
  That being so satisfactory, it occurred to us that we might do something further in the way of seeing how that would work out, and, thanks to an hon. Member of this House, we had an offer to take a whole battalion in motors down to some point at the seaside. He had a great interest in the work, and he was so good as to propose that an experimental trial should be made in taking a battalion of infantry down to the seaside to meet a possible invasion. I suggested to him that, as the only successful invasion of this country, or at all events, the most successful, took place at Hastings, that place would be a very good point. As the hon. Member for Hastings made the proposal, for which we are grateful to him, my suggestion was adopted. [An HON. MEMBER: "When does that take place?"] On the 17th of this month. The next thing I come to is a very difficult one, and it is one with which we are less familiar. It is the question of horses—a very serious one. We have gone very carefully into this. We summoned experts to the Remount Department, and we turned over every plan. We are very anxious to get an increase of the supply of horses in this country which will be available for war purposes, and I hope my noble Friend the

  1609
  President of the Board of Agriculture will succeed in his schemes for that purpose. What is more pressing is the existing situation in regard to mobilisation? How is that to be dealt with? Some indication was given in the financial statement of what we propose, but there has been a good deal of criticism upon it, I think from imperfect information, because I hope to show the House that we have gone with a great deal of minuteness into this question, and that we have pretty nrm ground to go upon. The first thing the House should know is the bedrock fact of what is required for mobilisation. I take first the mobilisation of the six divisions and the cavalry division, with a line of communication, and for that you would require a gross total of 69,253 horses. Then we have got on our peace establishment 15,542. I have written off 10 per cent. to provide for sick horses, leaving a deficiency of 53,904. The mobilisation of the Territorial force requires 86,000 more. Therefore, if you add 86,000 to 69,000 or 70,000 you find that what you require is 156,000 horses for mobilisation. Towards that we have 15,000 peace horses.
  Does that include Artillery
  Mr. HALDANEEverything. And we have also registered a number of horses. I have increased the number of registered horses by 8,000, and we have 25,000 registered horses in addition to the 15,000 peace horses; so that we have got altogether 40,000 horses. Deducting 40,000 from the 156,000, that leaves 116,000 to be provided for general mobilisation. I am taking the worst possible case. How many horses are in the country is the question I have got to ask.
  We need not be alarmed about this, because every country with an organised army is in the same difficulty that we have. The only difference is that they organise their horses. They organise the civilian horses of the country much more thoroughly than we have done. In fact, we have never tried to organise the civilian horses at all. But for many years there has existed in the Army the power on mobilisation to take horses and vehicles, of course paying compensation for their hire. There is also the power under Section 114 of the Army Act—a power which the police have of taking a census of the horses that exist in the country. That has never been scientifically or systematically put in practice; but when I came to look into the matter I found that this had been done to a much larger extent than I knew, and
  1610
  that they rather liked the practice, because it enabled them to get to know people about the farms and various places in the most friendly fashion. In several of the counties, more than I had anticipated, a pretty thorough census has been taken. I have been in consultation with the Board of Agriculture with regard to the number of horses in the country. The exact figures it is not possible to obtain. Various estimates have been made, and I think the House may take it as certain that there are upwards of 2,000,000 horses in the country. Of course, all these horses are not fit for our purposes, and I should write off half, to be safe, in respect of horses under five years and not otherwise fit for the sort of work we should put them to. Of the remaining million it would be safe to again write off half, in respect of horses of type that you could not suitably use even for transport or artillery. That leaves us with 500,000 horses in the country able and fit for Army purposes—a number sufficient to mobilise the Army between three and four times over. There is that satisfactory feature in the situation. The only question is not whether the horses are there or not, but whether we can mobilise them.
  It is quite true that motors tend to diminish the number of horses in the country, but I have gone into that matter with some of the great owners of horse traction vehicles, and they tell me that they have been able to estimate pretty accurately the extent to which the process of diminution will go. There will always be a very large number of horses in this country available. Moreover, we are getting further and further in the direction of using different kinds of traction for Army purposes—even across rough ground and hard places, and there is a motor at Aldershot which will climb almost anything short of a precipice. [An HON. MEMBER. "Will it jump?"] Yes, I have seen it jump. We are in the beginning of these things, and there is no doubt that traction will be assisted by motors in the Army just in the same way as it is being developed in civil occupations. The question was, therefore, how to organise these horses, and we naturally turned to the County Associations and to the police, who have power under Section 114 of the Army Act. I have myself had conferences with some chief-constables, and very interesting they have been. The result was that we came to the conclusion that we would try an experiment in one or two counties to see how it worked, because we

  1611
  felt that if it worked well it would be adopted by other counties. I went myself to Lanarkshire, and had a conference with the chairman of the Association, the chairman of the Yeomanry Committee, the Chief-Constable, and other persons interested. Since that I have seen Lord Newlands, President of the Association, and have had much fuller conferences with the officials in London. In Lanarkshire a very admirable census had already been made by the Chief-Constable, a retired officer who was very much interested. In the census he made he even classified the horses according to age. I find that the Chief Constable in Midlothian had done the same thing; and I find that in Northumberland a very elaborate census is being taken by the County Association in friendly co-operation with the police, and they are getting most minute details as to horses. There is no reluctance on the part of the people to answer questions when the point is nicely put to them. At any rate, that is the case in the counties of which I have spoken. We are trying an experiment in a slightly different form in Devonshire with the aid of Lord Fortescue, and there again we hope to get good results. The first Return by the police, however carefully done, can only be a rough Return; but the scheme we have arranged is this, that the horses so recorded will be seen and classified by local expert committees nominated by the County Associations working in conjunction with our remount officials that we have in different parts of the country. In that way the Quartermaster-General and the Director of Transports believe that they would be able to get very good records of the horses in the country—enough to tell us how we stand in each country for mobilisation. I have taken a sum of £6,000 in the Estimates, and no doubt if we succeed we shall spend more money, because I can conceive nothing more important, from the point of view of the Army, than that this census should be as good as we can make it.
  What we want to do is to go step by step slowly, taking one or two of the friendly counties first, and hoping that this thing will spread eventually to the great towns and all over the country. The next step is this: When we have the census complete the associations will have the duty of bringing the horses to certain points to mobilise, if the war has broken out. The associations' officials bring the horses
  1612
  to those points, and there the horses will be taken in charge by the General Officer Commanding, who will distribute them between Regulars and Territorials. We hope to mobilise the Territorials as well as the Regulars. Naturally, the Territorial Association in each county is very interested in those horses, because they may secure an arrangement to assist them in their peace training. So far as we have gone we have found a very ready response to our tentative efforts, and I hope later on to be able to tell the House more about it. The only other thing I can say about horses is that we are adding 200 this year to the cavalry horses, with a view to adding a similar number during each of three years. And at the depots, where they can be used for general purposes, we propose to add 150 horses to the general establishment. They can be availed of on various occasions where hitherto there has been a difficulty in not having them.
  The next thing I come to is another branch of mobilisation; I mean the way in which the troops have been dealt with in the readjustment and withdrawals from South Africa. We have withdrawn in this year 179 officers and 4,417 men, four battalions of infantry, a regiment of cavalry, and some details. So that we have now for the first time for very many years exactly the same number of units abroad as at home. But there remains what is the weak point, and always has been the weak point in the Cardwell system, that you cannot send an expedition abroad without mobilising. By means of Section A, you can send a small expedition, but you do not like to do it, as it somewhat disturbs mobilisation arrangements. We desire to get over in an effective way that weakness, so as to be able to do anything necessary abroad without a general mobilisation. What made matters acute was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told me that the garrison in Egypt was in an unsatisfactory condition. We knew it was, for it was not mobile.
  It occurred to me that to meet the possibilities of the situation we should put that garrison in order, and make it a mobile garrison. It occurred to me as well that as we should have to provide transport and other things, and as the wish of the Colonial Office was not to further reduce the troops in South Africa for, at any rate, some time, we might use the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, and get over the difficulties attending the Cardwell

  1613
  system by organizing a really mobile force in the Colonial garrisons. We have done this by increasing the establishments of the four battalions in Egypt to the same strength as in South Africa. We are making the Egyptian infantry battalions 840 instead of 760. There is an entire brigade in Malta and another brigade in South Africa. There are thus three brigades, and we are providing to make them mobile. Very little is wanted in Malta, because we provide transport for them in Egypt. And in Egypt we have done this—we have increased the establishment of horses, we are increasing the line battalions to 840, converting the Royal Garrison Artillery, which was singularly unsuitable, into a mountain battery, and the fortress company of Engineers into a field company of Engineers, and the existing Mounted Infantry into a camel corps.
  Mr. JOHN DILLONIs that done at the expense of Egypt?
  Mr. HALDANENo, not a penny falls on Egypt. It is done out of savings over South Africa. Egypt gets this advantage, and I think we shall have made the establishment a modern one and a mobile one. It is suitable for the third of a division. We have got the third of a division in South Africa. We have got six battalions and only four of them are wanted. We have got a brigade in Malta. We are putting the proper details into Egypt, and Malta has other things ready to supplement those in Egypt.
  So that we have got the structure of a new division not involving any cost, but which we have organised out of existing materials; enough to form a new seventh division and mobile either in parts or sections or as a whole. They can come together in mobilisation, and we have reserves to maintain their strength, and we have got the organisation which enables us to keep that figure up by the Cardwell system. We have now got the materials to equip small expeditions, say in the Soudan, or to deal with a matter of that kind on short notice, and without mobilising at all. This seventh Division is organised without any extra expense, and it is a distinctly useful addition to the organisation of the forces.
  The position then is this, that we have got Lord Kitchener's nine divisions which he organised in India. We have got over six divisions organised at home on the same pattern with three brigades, and we have got this nucleus of a seventh division. That gives us for organisation of the British
  1614
  Army, notwithstanding the reductions, sixteen divisions for over-seas work, we have 14 Territorial divisions at home. That represents the plan on which we organised. I think it is a convenient pattern, and one which will make the machinery of the Army move smoothly, and above all give us a standard and enable us to prune away unnecessary men and extras in the future. There is nothing like organisation for economy. The most wasteful thing you could have is a vast mass of unorganised troops without the organisation into divisions when you can ask for what purpose is this particular work. By that means you are in a position to get economies which you never could get before. It may be that still further on we shall find an ever more exact standard by which these things can be determined.
  That brings me to the work done in the year by that new body which is exercising such influence on the Army—I think for good—the General Staff. The General Staff, as the House knows, has, as its last piece of work, organised an Imperial General Staff. I need not say anything about it, but just this, that the Dominion Government of Canada, and the Commonwealth, have sent in their adhesion, and I hope others will follow. There again there is the advantage of organisation. Hon. Members need not be afraid that this is a spirit of militarism. It is rather the other way, and brings us to the position that the General Staff would be enabled, with the Colonial Governments of the Oversea Dominions, to work with a similarity of pattern and a similarity of organisation all round. So that not only should they have for their home defences the most modern scientific pattern of organisation: but there should be that possibility of co-operation in a case of great necessity, which was found to be such a real possibility in 1899. The last thing the Government had any idea of is even to suggest to the Overseas Dominion what they should do. We say:—"Here is something we have worked out; if you care to take advantage of it we can provide you with certain facilities, we can interchange officers with you, and if you will accept it it will be as good for you as for us, and we will give you the warmest welcome in our power."
  For that purpose no doubt the Staff College will be a useful institution, and with a view to the future we have enlarged it by three professors and 22 students. We can now with a little change take in any extra officers sent over from

  1615
  the Oversea Dominions providing for their training. We have also a Staff College in India, so that we have now two, and I hope other military colleges will spring up under the influence of the General Staffs at convenient centres. The General Staff has worked this out. Sir W. Nicholson has also worked out with the Director of Military Training a complete set of plans for the home defences, and into the details of which I am not going. In the first place we have every hundred yards of coast of these islands under survey, and the allocation of the territorial units who have been trained for the purpose to defences of this section. Behind that there is being organised a central force, partly regular, partly territorial, which on the outbreak of war would be placed under its own commander-in-chief, with its own staff, and that would be able very quickly to proceed to the spot where the local force had delayed the landing of the enemy, and come there, I hope, in overwhelming numbers. I trust that the effect of that will be to render invasion still less likely than it is at the present time. I do not think it is likely now; it will be still less likely then.
  Then there are the other departments of the General Staff. I have spoken of General Nicholson's work, aided by General Haig, in connection with the Imperial General Staff, and of General Murray's work, under General Nicholson, in regard to home defence. General Ewart has worked out the whole question of military operations a stage further than it has been before, and there have been constant conferences, which I think are a very good thing, between the Army and the Navy in the Committee of Imperial Defence. I will say no more upon that, but I think it right that the House should know that the Government have not neglected any opportunity of bringing the Army and the Navy together for the consideration of strategic questions.
  Then there is the officers' training corps. That is, as the House is aware, under the General Staff, and consists of the supersession of the old volunteers corps and cadet corps in the public schools and Universities by the officers' training corps, the junior division being in the public schools and the senior division in the Universities. That corps was only started in last June; it has been put under the General Staff; they have not been limited
  1616
  in the number of officers for training; we have encouraged them in every way, and I am glad to say that we have had a very good response. There are now over 17,000 in the two divisions, which is not a bad result since last June. That will begin in the summer to give us a supply of special reserve officers, whom we shall begin to use for making up what is wanted for the special reserve battalions, and also, I hope, for the Territorial force. Another thing we have had to do is this. The House will remember that the Farwell Commission disclosed a great defect in the organisation for war so far as concerns arrangements in the field. There was no proper system of supply or transport, and finance was not attempted at all, with the result there was a very sharp Report from the Farwell Commission. We have grappled with that. It has been a difficult work; it has taken two years; but the Army Council has now worked out a new scheme, which will appear, I hope, in a few days, under the title of "New Field Service Regulations," which will provide for the conduct of operations in the field. The first principle is that we take the Commander-in-Chief and mark off the theatre of war. We say to him, "The Army Council looks after the arrangements for the troops and the care of the Army everywhere in time of peace, in the territory under our control, but in time of war we are going to surround the theatre of war with a line, and there you, as General Officer, who will be elected by the Cabinet itself to command the troops, will be supreme. You will take your general instructions, but we look to you to work everything out.' Then we say to him, "Having given you this freedom and put upon you this responsibility, we are now going to relieve you of every detail that can impede you in devoting your mind singly, without hindrance, to the operations of the war. We are going to relieve you of all considerations about transport and supply, unless it is some big question that you want to take up yourself; and we are going to give you a staff which will be able to write out your orders for you, collect all details as to the position of the enemy, and advise you; and not only shall it be able to do so, but it shall have the duty of doing so. But you are supreme, and you can take its advice or leave it." We give him a staff amongst whom the various functions are distributed: a large and elaborately worked out staff, who provide for the different heads of work which comes

  1617
  under the General Staff—as well as discipline, transport, and supply. The great problem has been lines of communication. That always was a tremendous problem. But we have solved that by the invention of a new kind of officer, the Inspector-General of a Line of Communication. Each big line of communication will be under the direction of an Inspector-General, whose work will be transport and supply work under the Quartermaster General, and whose business it will be to see that things come up smoothly from the base. Then there will be finance people, accountants, and the organisation which has been worked out to keep check on what is going on, and to bring up things as quickly as possible, and above all, to free the officers above him from the necessity of constantly attending to details. Then the Commander-in-Chief will not have to be responsible for the things for which the Commander-in-Chief was blamed by the Farwell Commission—things which were wholly out of his power to control, and which he ought never to have had to consider at all. Finally, on these general principles the Army Council have worked out what we call a barrack policy or peace distribution policy, the purpose of which is, instead of basing organisation on buildings, to base buildings on organisations.
  Now I come to one or two things which I wish to pass over quickly. First of all, armaments. I have been asked several questions which I promised to answer about the new howitzer. We have taken a large sum in the estimates for the new howitzer, and arrangements have been made for providing it rapidly. A special committee was formed some time ago to consider designs for the new howitzer, and a trial battery of four howitzers was selected. Extensive trials were carried out at Salisbury Plain with very good results. The new howitzer is much superior to the old howitzer. To begin with, it has an accurate range up to 7,000 yards. It is a quick-firing machine, its weight does not exceed that of the field gun, and it is as good a weapon, I think, as exists in the world. The 35 lb. shell which it fires has been found to be effective both as lyddite and shrapnel That is the weapon with which we are going to arm the fresh artillery which is being added.
  Mr. ASHLEYCan the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these guns are now ready?
  Mr. HALDANEI cannot tell the hon. Member that at this moment. The experimental battery has been working, and I think the orders have been placed for the others. Then there is a much more difficult question, that is about the rifle. As the House knows, foreign countries are adopting a short pointed bullet, as distinguished from the long-headed bullet. There are advantages and disadvantages in that. No doubt for great masses of infantry in close formation and very near to each other, the light bullet, with its very flat trajectory is better; the velocity and trajectory are both better at short range. But at longer range it is not so clear, and a great deal of our work is work which will not take place at such short range as 500 or 600 yards. The bullet of our present amunition covers 5 ft. 6 in. height for a range of 550 yards, and at 2,000 yards it has a striking energy of 155 ft. pounds. The new bullet covers the same 5 ft. 6 in. height for a range of 700 yards—that is 150 yards more than our own—and at 2,000 yards its velocity has fallen off; it is only 142 against our 155 ft. pounds. So that there is not such a very great difference, although it may be very important in time of action. Still, we want the best, and what we have been considering is whether we can use the lighter bullet. We find that so far as pressure is concerned we can do that. If you have a large charge you must have a light bullet, and if you have a heavy bullet you take a lighter charge, That results from certain of Newton's laws, which I need not discuss here. The difficulty is this: if the rifling of the short rifle is new, the light bullet shoots well, but with the more worn rifle the results are not so good. You do not get the difference in muzzle velocity which makes it worth while to make a change. We are going on with the experiments with a view to producing, if we can, something between the heavy bullet and the very light bullet which will do for the existing rifle. But we have to look ahead constantly at what has undoubtedly been realised in Europe as to the necessity for an automatic rifle. We are concentrating our attention on two subjects. We are getting a pattern of an automatic rifle and, at the same time, if we can, including the use of a light bullet. We have, however, to remember not only that our short rifle has advantages which the long rifle has not, but that at long range our short rifle is a more effective weapon than the Continental light-bullet rifle.

  1619
  Now I come to another subject—aerial navigation. This question was referred by the Committee of Imperial Defence to the Army and Navy experts, who sat for a long time. Very careful inquiries were made as to what should be done. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty informs me that the Navy at present are considering a pattern of dirigible balloon. I think I know something about it, but it would not be right to go into it now. But we have rather distributed the work. The Army is going in for dirigible balloons, and we are considering the best pattern as regards aeroplanes. We have entered into negotiations with private inventors. We think that probably we have reached a stage when progress will be more rapidly made by dealing with private inventors than if we confined ourselves to the work of our own very capable officials who have not the facilities which many of the private inventors have. Therefore, this matter must take time. It will be a good while before the aeroplane is an efficient instrument in war, but we ought to be considering these things in advance. That is what we are doing at the present time, and we shall be experimenting in the coming year.
  Then as regards buildings—a subject in which the hon. Member for Blackpool Division is very much interested—I have some particulars to give the House. The hon. Member has put several questions to me in regard to the provision of married quarters. I agree with him that one of the subjects which demands our attention is the improvement of married quarters, and realising that the sum of £86,000 has been put into the estimates of the year for that purpose. Of that amount £62,400 has been allotted for the construction of new married quarters, and £24,000 for the improvement of old married quarters.
  Mr. ASHLEYIs it an increase of £86,000?
  Mr. HALDANEThe total sum we put in this year's estimates is £86,000 for that purpose. We are improving barracks at a number of places, and we think that the work of providing better married quarters should be done as soon as possible. We are also taking money for the construction of a small block at Wellington Barracks, and that, I think, is a right thing to do. We are re-constructing St. Peter's Barracks in Jersey, improving the drainage lit various places, and providing additional
  1620
  accommodation at various stations. We are doing all we can to improve the lighting where coal, gas or electric light is not available. We take —95,000 towards the completion of the Owen Committee recommendations about fortifications.
  I wish to say a word about finance. I am strongly confirmed in my view that it is far better, in the case of the Army at all events, to have your building programme provided for on the estimates, and not to have loans for the purpose. The practices which spring up under the loans system means a very great waste of money. It is a system under which people do not consider carefully what they want and what they do not want, whereas when these charges are placed on the estimates from year to year we know exactly what we decide to spend during the year.
  There is another topic which I wish to touch upon. A new equipment has been introduced for the dismounted soldier. It is believed to mark a great advance on any previously in use in our Army. There are two main features underlying the design. The first hygienic, and the second tactical. As regards the former, the object sought has been the abolition of all straps, etc., across the chest and under the arms. In consequence of the special means adopted in the disposal of the weight, the waistbelt can be left unfastened, and the coat and shirt unbuttoned to the neck without disturbing the balance of the whole. The equipment, when put together, forms one piece, and can be put on or taken off as easily and as readily as one's coat. The material employed is cotton yarn, woven into a very strong webbing dyed khaki.
  The tactical end achieved in the design is the sub-division of the complete set into what may be called the marching and fighting portions. In the latter nothing is included which is not essential to the fighting efficiency of the soldier. Everything else is relegated to the marching portion, which can be instantaneously detached from the former when the soldier is on the point of going into action. In this equipment the soldier will carry on the person a total weight of 58¼ lbs.; this includes his clothing, arms, 150 rounds of ammunition, and many other items for his personal convenience. When going into action he will be given a further 120 rounds, but by relieving him of that portion of his equipment which is not absolutely necessary at such a time, he will, in spite of this addition, carry only 53¾ lbs.
  Mr. JOHN WARDHow does that compare with what is done in other European countries?
  Mr. HALDANEWe are in the happy position of being pioneers here; or, at all events, we have been followed on the same line by other countries. The American army and navy, the Italian navy, and the Dutch navy have adopted a somewhat similar equipment. Trials have been carried out in France and Russia with this equipment, with favourable results. Trials in India have also proved very satisfactory. It is understood that a trial will shortly take place with it in the Chinese army. It is necessary that it should be clearly understood that this webbing is quite dissimilar from that used during the South African War, which was not found satisfactory. The severe trials to which the new equipment has been put have convinced the military authorities that a perfectly strong and satisfactory material has been found. Although persons in the leather trade may be sceptical on this point, the action of foreign Governments endorses our choice. I do not know whether it would be of any interest to the House to see the equipment, but if hon. Members desire to see it arrangements could be made to show it.
  I think the House will be interested to know what we propose to do in regard to manœuvres. In regard to manœuvres, we are getting more and more to feel the influence of the new organisation in big divisions. This year we have reached a stage where we are going to carry out progressive training with greater effect and a nearer approximation to war conditions than has hitherto been the case. We have taken a large area in Worcestershire, Oxfordshire, and Berkshire, and we shall have a month's work there with four divisions and also with a cavalry division. These four divisions will have their regular training, then their inter-divisional training, and, finally, the first and second divisions, with half of the cavalry division, will operate against the third and fourth divisions and the other half of the cavalry division. That is approximating more closely to war conditions than we have done in the past. There is another thing I am anxious to do. I am talking now of these divisions on their peace establishment, but we want to see what one of these great divisions would do when completely mobilised. We are going to mobilise it down at Aldershot, and that will be operative in the end of July. It
  1622
  will stretch along fifteen or sixteen miles of road on an enormous winding circuit. That, at any rate, will give us our first experience of handling one of these great new units, and it will be good for the officers who have the difficult task of managing it.
  Now I come to say a few words about the Territorial Force. To begin with, as regards its training the House will realise that it is to be conducted by a more extensive staff than the old force. The time of training, it is said, is too short. So it would be if you simply measured it by the contract with the State. But these territorial officers are enthusiasts, and do a great deal more work than we put in the regulations. I learn by the reports that the training is proceeding very well. They give every assistance they possibly can, and the officers are pleased with the new instrument. The artillery will be complete by 31st March. The equipment—all but balloons and wireless telegraphy—is already being got out, and the cost is estimated at £120,000.
  The rifle is being converted. It is a conversion from the later Lee-Metfords and from the Lee-Enfield patterns. The conversion consists generally in fitting the rifle with a bridge over the magazine opening to guide the charges, and also with a new magazine. The bridge and the magazine are similar to those of the latest pattern short rifle. The average weight of the rifle is 91b. 5oz. The issue of it is under consideration, an advance issue of eight rifles per battalion having already been made. The issue will probably be completed during 1909–10. I do not think that I need go into all the details. They will be issued very shortly. As regards buildings, we are getting on steadily. It is, however, a tedious process. With reference to the Cadet Corps and rifle clubs, we think it desirable that the organisation should converge to the same useful end. We propose to make the relation between them and the Territorial Force more intimate than it is at present, and we propose to do it through the instrument of the associations. A scheme is under consideration to that end. We are organising a new reserve of Territorials. We think that the men who pass through the force with a good training should not be lost. They should be formed into a reserve in order to enable us to bring up the strength of the Territorial Force from 300,000 to 400,000.
  The Territorial Force will cost you more than now, but I think that the original

  1623
  estimate will cover it. Loan annuities are falling in. The old Auxiliary Forces cost £4,400,000. The Special Reserve and Territorials may cost £4,900,000, but on the other hand the Regulars will be cheaper. At all events, we do not anticipate any unpleasant surprises. What have we got for the money? Compared with the return of October, 1905, the figures are: Reserve, 200,000 instead of 94,000. Of course, the Regular Reserve will come down when we reach the normal figure, but on the other hand the Special Reserve will go up, and you will get about 200,000.
  The outcome of the whole matter is this. Of course, the Militia are gone, but the Territorial force takes the place of the old Home Defence Auxiliary Forces. It is quite true we have fewer men in the Army as a whole, but we have organised it into two lines instead of three or four lines. The new organisation has now reached a stage where we can carry out professional training with greater effect and near approximation to war conditions. There will be the same money, but we shall get more for it.
  What is the object for which this Army exists? There are two views—one is that the Army is for passive resistance, and the other that the Army, with our command of the seas, takes and makes a frontier on the enemy's coast line where you seek him out. That is a mode of defence which has been our characteristic defence throughout our history; and it is important that we should have a clear idea that that is the strategical principle on which our Army is based. To go in for an immense defence force must simply weaken the regular army. Ancient Rome fell into the state of not balancing these two things—defence and the power of initiative, and unable to stand the stress put upon it Rome fell.
  That is a mistake in one way. We ourselves in our history have made mistakes the other way. Anyone who studies the admirable book of Mr. Fortescue and the writings of the late Colonel Henderson will see what would come to this country if we were to give up command of the sea, and an over-sea army that could make that command successful. A Home defence force no more than to make impossible invasion is the foundation of British strategy. This is a practical question. There was an admirable article in the "Contemporary Review" last month on "The Possibility of Invasion," written by a naval expert whose name I do not know,
  1624
  but who is somebody who knows his work thoroughly, and who points out the enormous difficulty of invasion, in the fullest technical details, and shows how with a very large invading army of 200,000 or 150,000, or even less, the fleets would form a target that could not escape a navy that had command of the sea. He shows that what is desirable is that we should so home-defend ourselves as to make it necessary that a big force should be the invading force which would form a certain target to our naval defence. It is well to bear that in mind, and if we bear it in mind it seems to me that we must come to one conclusion—that naval power is never effective without an over-sea army power to work with it for a country like ours, which is an Empire that has to be defended at a distance. Our first duty is to take care that the Home defence force does not drag back and starve the power of the first line.
  Now as to the question of compulsory service. I am looking at these things for the moment not from the idealist point of view, but from the strategic point of view, and from my strategic point of view I have to say if you go in for building up a large Home defence army, particularly on a semi-regular basis, you will starve in every way your regular army both in men and money. I am not drawing conjectures. I am speaking from the study of such books as I have spoken—of such books as Mr. Fortescue's. The greatest harm you can do is to forget your great strategic principle, that the offensive is the true mode of defence, and that you must keep your over-sea line of your regular army intact and strong. If we adopted any different system, if we departed from that—we should do three things. We should inevitably substitute in people's minds for the true thing the idea that the army of this country should be squatted along the sea shore; the second thing we should do would be to make the regular army bankrupt in men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will tell you why in a moment. Our great over-sea army must recruit upon voluntary basis, consisting of men who engage for seven years with the colours and five with the reserve. No power in the world could coerce such soldiers into taking such an engagement. That army is recruited from enthusiasts. We know that in Continental countries they have the greatest difficulty in getting volunteers, whereas with us it is perfectly easy, because it is that phase of the military career that appeals most to a lot of men who have no compulsion to make military service dis

  1625
  agreeable to them. Depending, as we do, on a system of getting about 56,000 recruits every year to join the regular Army and Special Reserve recruits who must take voluntary engagement for over-sea service, it would be an action of deadly peril to put that stream of recruits in danger by applying compulsory measures of service to young men between the ages of 17 and 21, who are just the people who give us that stream of recruits. To apply compulsory service in time of peace to that field would be gravely to imperil the stream of life of the regular Army; because if there is even substantially a danger to that stream of life, then, strategically situated as we are, we ought not to run that risk. If that be true, it rules out a great many propositions that have been made. I am not talking of other things. Were the nation in deadly peril, everybody would come forward, and not only so, but nobody would be concerned to dispute that if this country were invaded or were in imminent peril of being invaded, it would be the legal as well as the moral duty of every man to bear arms and repel the invader. That was laid down about the year 1635 by St. John, the counsel for Hampden in the Ship-money case, and one of the great defenders of the Commonwealth. And as late as 1803 it formed the preamble of the Act of Parliament under which the levée en masse was to be made in case Napoleon invaded this country. That rests on the common law of the land. We are not disputing that although opposed to compulsion. What we are contesting is that it would be a good thing to apply compulsion in time of peace to young men who otherwise come forward to our regular Army and our Territorial force.
  It may be very right that the national duty to serve in times of supreme emergency should be recognised in our education. I have been in the East End of London, and I have been struck and impressed with what I saw in the work of the Boys' Brigades there. I have been in the slum regions, and have seen in the areas round the homes from which the boys come all that one would wish not to see, and yet these young fellows were splendid specimens of humanity, and have become so by athletic exercises and physical drill, and of the very type out of which you could very quickly organise a great reserve in time of national necessity. It may be right for the schools to do, but what I say is that the War Office ought not to touch upon the stream of life for the regular Army. Conscription I am against, not
  1626
  upon sentimental grounds, or any ground except strategical grounds, which are enough for me. I am against any interference with the present system of voluntary recruiting for an island like ours, and that is the policy of the War Office. Another thing is money. I saw a calculation the other day made by an association for which I have the utmost respect, because I know that those who belong to it are the most patriotic men in this country, and have the highest motives. There is no soldier to whom the country owes a greater debt of gratitude than to its founder, Lord Roberts. Lord Roberts put the extra cost at £4,000,000. I think it would be a much larger figure. I am not going into the exact cost. But even supposing £4,000,000 were added to the Territorial force, do you think the nation would allow that to be added to the Army on the one side without asking for reductions on the other? There is the regular Army to think of, and I have always thought it a good thing that we should be looked after closely in that respect. But, on the other hand, if you take off anything inevitably you lead to a weakening of the regular Army, not only in the men but in the money, and therefore on strategical grounds I am for providing against shortage of men and money where shortage is most deleterious. If this House can only come to some broad conclusion, can agree that it will hold to some fixed strategical principle, such as I have been trying to enunciate; then there is hope that progress will be made, and will be made steadily. The way to the state of things we desire may be long and difficult, but it will be something if we adepuately map it out ahead.
  Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTERI am sure I envy the right hon. Gentleman many of his qualities, none more than the energy of power which have enabled him to address so many speeches to his countrymen on matters so near to its heart and to give so long and interesting an address to the House this evening. I have neither the capacity nor intention to imitate the right hon. Gentleman in the length of the remarks which I am about to make, and even if I had the power I should not entertain the wish, because although I am strongly of opinion that what the right hon. Gentleman said—all of it—was of great interest to a few Members of this House who have, to a certain extent, if I may say so, specialised with regard to military questions, a great deal of what he said was perhaps hardly equally intelligible or perhaps equally interesting to

  1627
  Members of this House who had not made this special study. I shall try to confine myself to what I conceive to be the larger and, in one sense, the more interesting aspects of the question. I would make a general comment upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I should be tempted to say that he had throughout dealt much more with names than with things. I regard the Army from one point of view alone, and that is the point of view of war, and I am tempted to examine everyone of the proposals that are made in this House from the standpoint of one who is asking "What would be the effect in war of all these changes which you are making?" I want to deal with one other subject than that of war, and that is the very interesting question of finance.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us, and I think this is a point on which the House of Commons would like to be convinced, that for economy there is nothing like organisation. I am afraid I am compelled by that observation to conclude that there cannot be much organisation during the first year, because there will not be much economy. I think I am right in saying that after this speech and the many other speeches which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and that after, I if I may say so, considerable proofs of the success produced by the process of clear thinking in the Army we stand in this position, that we are spending this year on the Army £275,000 more than we did last year. The nominal reduction is £24,000, but the actual increase is £275,000. We are spending that sum more than we did last year, and we are some 100,000 men to the bad. I agree, if you include the Army Reserve, that would mean some £50,000, £60,000, or £70,000, but I do consider that that is a very small and unsatisfactory result, and that, after all the professions of economy, we have no economy at all, and a very serious fall in the number of men. I am not censuring the right hon. Gentleman for not having reduced expenditure on the Army. I have always said it is a dream to think of reducing the expenditure of the Army with the system which at present prevails. I do not think you can, but I think it would have been fairer if the Government had been more candid with the country, and spared us some of those statements with regard to expected economies which were intended to beguile their supporters. How have you any economy when the only economy made is the reduction of men, and so long
  1628
  as the present, system goes on, you will have no economy at all. There are many speeches of the right hon. Gentleman which are matters of congratulation, and I am sure I shall be the first to congratulate him upon them. He has told us that he has adopted, as I ventured to think he was bound to adopt, the principle to which the late Government attached so much importance: in regard to concurrent enlistment. He has adopted the system of enlisting men for long service and short service concurrently, and when I remember the hard words used against the late Government for venturing to suggest that system, I smile while I congratulate him. I am also interested to see that another anticipation which we ventured to make has been verified. I ventured to tell the right hon. Gentleman, now three years ago, that the experiment with the reserve of the Royal Artillery was destined to failure, that it could not succeed, and that he was mistaken in the possibilities of the situation. I have admitted, and the late Government admitted, the desirability of the introduction of short-service men into the Royal Artillery, limited by the very strict scheme the right hon. Gentleman has adopted. It is a source of gratification that he has adopted, verbatim et literatim, the proposals we made three years ago. I congratulate him on the success of his efforts in establishing a school for officers. He has showed great sagacity and great skill in endeavouring to raise the scale for officers. I am not as sanguine as he is as to the officers who will emerge from these proposals, but I do regret that, in this attempt to get a certain number of amateur officers, we shall have lost over 500 trained officers for the Army. The right hon. Gentleman told us that in carrying out this scheme we were following the example of Germany.
  Something very different is done in Germany. I am perfectly certain if they thought they could take a number of boys from the public schools and universities and give them the amount of quasi-training which the right hon. Gentleman is giving, and make real officers of them, they would do it at once. But they do something very different. They take a boy after leaving school, after passing an examination, and after he is shown to be qualified physically, socially, and from the military point of view, put him into the ranks of the regular Army for a year as a private, and he comes under the full discipline of the German Army. Then, if he is satisfactory, they allow him to go for a year as an officer in a regular regiment,

  1629
  again under a tremendous discipline, for another year. At the end of that time they do not put him into the first rank of their Army, but allow him to enter as a sublieutenant into the territorial or land Army, which stands behind the regular Army. There is no analogy at all between that process and the one by which the right hon. Gentleman hopes he may supplement the lamentable deficiency of our officers. He is to be congratulated, at any rate, from his point of view, upon the swelling of the ranks of the Territorial Army. I have never had the slightest doubt that he would attain his numbers. I have always said I saw no reason whatever why he should not obtain exactly the same number of Territorials as volunteers. Why not? They are exactly the same people, asked to do exactly the same thing, no more and no less, and if one can be obtained I see no earthly reason why the other should not. I know he has attached great importance to bringing his roll up to the number which he desired, and I congratulate him on the success which he will no doubt ultimately attain for his full desires, and which he has already partially attained, but I am not very much enamoured of some of the methods which have been accepted for that purpose. I rather feel that compulsion in any form, except by the State, ought to he left alone. I do not at all object to the compulsion of the State. There may be a time when a great nation may have an absolute right to force its sons into its service, but I look with some suspicion upon compulsion which is not exercised by the State, but which, after all, as I believe, in this case, is the result of private confabulations between distinguished and wealthy gentlemen and the Secretary of State for War. Nor am I particularly impressed by the dragging in of the drama. I am given to understand that the whole object of the officer who wrote the play was to warn the country of the enormous danger which resulted from taking the view that war should be entered upon without sustaining its penalties, and he tried to make them understand that if you are to avoid the misery and shame which come from defeat in war you must prepare in peace. But what he wrote has been travestied, and that very play, which I should not introduce into the House at all if it had not been made the subject of public criticism and public appeal, has been utilised for the purpose of advertising the very contrary to the opinion which it was meant to convey. Neither of these methods commend themselves to my judgment, and I think on mature consideration
  1630
  they will hardly commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Now I come to another matter, which is not a subject of congratulation at all. I regard with some suspicion what he has told us with regard to the Special Reserve. I ask the House to inquire very carefully, not into general phrases, but into the real thing which is going on. What is the Special Reserve. It is a short-service army which is to serve in this country in time of peace, and which is to recruit the regular army in time of war. The right hon. Gentleman has purported to give us the figures of that army. Those figures are not correct. He has told us this army has already reached some 55,000 in infantry, and that, of course, is a very substantial advance towards the object he has in view. If he will go down to any of these depots where special reservists are being recruited he will learn a great deal more than he told us. If he knows it, I am sorry he did not tell the House. Here is the table he gave me the other day containing information which I had previously acquired for myself. Of the 55,000 infantry in the special reserve 37,000 are simply Militiamen who are transferred in order to finish their terms. Since that they have enlisted 25,400 men, and of these 2,200 have been discharged as unfit to be soldiers at all. Six thousand one hundred and fifty have passed on the regular Army or the Navy, and 11,000 are entered as now drilling at the depots. The total number discharged from the Reserve is 7,600, and there is a significant note to that figure which explains that out of these 7,600 a considerable number do not belong to the Special Reserve at all, but are simply passing on, like the others, to the regular Army. Of the 11,000 men still drilling at the depots a proportion, varying in different places from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent., have no more intention of going through the Special Reserve than they have of going through the Salvation Army.
  I think I have demonstrated that these figures are misleading in the highest degree, and when I tell the House what this little remnant of 6,000 men is composed of they will see why I take such a strong objection. I was talking to a non-commissioned officer at one of these depots. I did not know him and he did not know me. I said: "Who is it that you get into the Special Reserve?" He said: "They are mostly them as has got some defects." I was talking to an officer, and I asked the same question. He

  1631
  said: "There are two classes of men. There are the men who are 1½ inches under standard, and cannot go into the regular Army, and there are the men we do not want for the line." That is happening all over the country, and it is going to happen. All these depots are infantry depots of the line, and it is the duty of the officers to take all the men they can get, for the line and leave behind all they do not want. Who are these men? We hear something about the physique of the Army. I wish hon. Member's would look for themselves and see these boys who are responding to this appeal to go into the Army for six months instead of going to the workhouse—boys nominally 17 years of age, but actually 15 or 16—and see them going through this drill. Every Army in the world except our own thinks a man is not fit to be a soldier at all until he is 20, and when he has enlisted as a soldier they say two years is the minimum period under the strongest discipline they can enforce. What do we do? We are taking these boys of 16 and 17 and drilling them for six months. "At the end of that time," one officer said to me, "we put that boy outside the door in his old clothes, and he goes." He never joins his regiment—he does not know what his regiment is till the time he is actually summoned on the declaration of war. He does not know what battalion he is to serve with. He is enlisted for general service, and may be, and under many circumstances would be, posted to a battalion he had never heard of. He never sees his officers or non-commissioned officers, and never sees, except accidentally, his comrades. And these boys, turned adrift at 17½ into the street, are to be called out, some of them with the addition of 15 days' training, and put into the front rank of the British Army in time of war.
  I will not trust myself to my own judgment upon this matter. I will take an authority which the right hon. Gentleman no doubt will recognise. He told us not long ago that in accordance with the opinion of the great majority of the military advisers of the Government, battalions should be mobilised in accordance with the cardinal system; that is a continuance of seven years in the colour service is greatly to be preferred to battalions composed largely of inferior and partially trained residents, who must necessarily be inferior to well trained and seasoned men who have already gone through a substantial period of service
  1632
  abroad. Who are these men who could not be taken into the line battalions? These were all men who had done two years under an officer in a battalion and been subsequently called out for training, men who had some training as soldiers in every army in the world except our own. These were the men whom for some transient purpose the military advisers of the right hon. Gentleman combined to ban as unfit for placing in either of the battalions; and yet we are to be told that these boys of 16 and 17 were fit to be placed in the front line of our Army. I cannot put the House in possession of my point of view fully. One must see the kind of thing that is done in other countries, and what the battalions are that are being prepared in the great armies of the Continent. One must go down and see these boys in the depot to realise what folly it is to suppose that we can do by magic what no other nation in the world except ourselves conceives it possible to accomplish.
  I have another reason for believing that this force is not a force that we ought to rely on. There is the universal opinion, stated in public documents before a great tribunal by every single one of the right hon. Gentleman's military advisers, as to what was the minimum term of service necessary to make a soldier. They say it is two years. If he turns to the report of the Commission he will find the opinion of officer after officer, some of them his advisers now and some of them his advisers in the past, everyone of them stating in no uncertain manner that two years' training is necessary to make a soldier. Are we to imagine that men of the class that we are getting, the men whom the right hon. Gentleman has appealed to to come into the Army rather than go to the workhouse are in six months of casual training to be made into soldiers? Let him go down and see these places. These men are squadded every week and drilled in little groups of a dozen. Week after week they are put into another group, passing through the six months' training. If the right hon. Gentleman can perform miracles he should tell the House, but he should give us some reason for believing he is able to perform miracles that no one else is able to perform. I ventured to express the opinion some time ago, and I have never ceased to hold it, that under this system you could not attain either the proper men or officers at all. I constantly asserted that it was impossible when you shattered the Militia force to carry on the services performed

  1633
  by the officers of the Militia. What has happened? The establishment of this Special Reserve is 80,000 men. How many officers have they scraped in since 15 months ago? A hundred for 80,000 men. And this is not wonderful. The wonder is that they got any at all.
  Can the House realise that the lieutenant-colonel of one of these units has just received permission four times in the year to go to the depot and look at his own battalion. That is the position in which a lieutenant-colonel of a battalion stands towards the men whom he is nominally at least supposed to command. The right hon. Gentleman was driven to confess a night or two ago in answer to a question that he had given up all hope of getting these officers, and expected rather that the public schools and universities would find the officers for these Special Reserve units. He will not get them, but if he did that is the worst possible way of officering them. What is wanted is some constant connection and perpetual cameraderie between the officers and the men; but there would be nothing of that kind if you had these young men from the university turning out for 15 days in the year with a number of men whom they never saw before and may never see again. It is very remarkable that no other country in the world and no branch of any other service in this ever thought of such a way of solving the problem. With regard to this Special Reserve, which I believe to be a sheer absolute waste of public money, and a very dangerous waste of public money, by making people believe that they have an available force when they have not, it has one virtue only—it embodies a sound principle—the principle that will have to be adopted, and will certainly be adopted in this country—that of enlarging the numbers of your colour strength in this country and of increasing the period of service so as to have real officers serving with their own men. When you have done that, as you will have to do, you will have then a Special Reserve which, instead of being a useless deception, will become of some service. But that time has not come yet.
  And now I come to the question of the preparation of the Regular Army in this country for the kind of trial to which it may be subjected. I would like the House to understand what is at the back of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He told us he was going to have 60,000 men capable of going on an expeditionary force, and we are asked to admire that as
  1634
  a product of the present policy. You do not make the Army strong by depriving it of 18,000 or 19,000 men that are the flower of the Army and diminishing its Reserve. What has made it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to talk in this manner at all is this, that during previous Administrations there were 28,000 men added to the strength of the Regular Army—and these had been added by no effort of the right hon. Gentleman—and 39,000 men to the army in reserve, and there had also been added 64 batteries to the Royal Artillery. When you add 64 batteries to the Royal Artillery and 67,000 men to the Army it is conceded you will have a larger force to deal with than before these additions were made. Is the right hon. Gentleman responsible for one of them? What has been his contribution? His contribution has been destroying what others built. He struck 18,000 men off the Regular Army and put a number of batteries in a position in which they are incapable of rendering service. Already, happily, he has seen Low impossible it is to continue that policy. He now at last is training some of these batteries into the vitality of real military existence; but he has no right whatever to claim any merit for the increase which he now asks us to admire. He speaks of this expeditionary force. Sixty thousand is to be the total army to take part in it. Why, Sir, in the South African War, during the first five months, 155,000 men belonging to the Regular Army were sent out from this country. But, have we got any further? I do not think we have got so far. When we hear these statements about increases of the Regular Army, and the merits attached to those that produce them, we should remember, so far from there being any increase, what has happened is owing to the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is now busily engaged in undoing. I saw the other day a review of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman by an officer who has often been quoted in this House, and of whose merit he has spoken very highly—I allude to Colonel Court Repington. I observe that this officer spoke with the highest admiration of the policy of the right hon Gentleman, and said it was almost perfect, although there were some exceptions. He said the plan for reinforcing the Regular Artillery should be dropped, and it has been dropped. He also said that the destruction of 5,000 Royal Artillery was an entire mistake, and that the right hon. Gentleman ought to re-enlist 5,000 men in the Royal Artillery. The right hon. Gen-

  1635
  tleman said that the Territorial force was one of the noblest creations of men, and he also said that it was deficient in officers and in training; and, if you ever endeavour to make the training such as to fit the men for the field, you would dry up the whole sources of recruiting for the Territorial Army. He said that every officer knew it.
  I think the Secretary of State for War is entitled to receive great credit for his organisation of the Territorial Army, but surely that is rather the position of making perfect an engine ready to work at high pressure and then being unable to supply the requisite steam. What is the use of it without the motive power which is requisite? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who has advised him that we can face a serious war with an army raised upon these terms? Never in the history a war, going back as far as you like, has a semi-trained army held its own against trained soldiers in the field.
  Sir JOHN BRUNNERHow about the Boers?
  Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTERDoes the right hon. Gentleman desire me to explain that fallacy to the House? I am glad of his interruption. Now, what are the facts? The Boers from childhood have had great experience in riding, shooting, taking cover, judging distance, and fighting. The superiority of the Boers in the field was not due to the fact that they were citizen soldiers, but because they had lived their lives under very different circumstances. I wish to point out, however, that whenever it came to serious fighting the Boers were put back. It has been said that the German Army was not a formidable organisation, but it once marched to Paris in three months, and I believe it might do it again. Conceive the analogy in this country. Imagine the invaders, after having captured all our railways, having occupied London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Edinburgh, and all our large cities, and were feeding all our women and children in relief camps upon Salisbury Plain while the Territorials, or what was left of them, were carrying out a gallant struggle in Sligo or Caithness. No, that is no analogy at all. I adhere to my original proposition, that there is no instance in the world of a untrained army holding its own with any degree of success against a trained army. Every nation in the world believes that to train a soldier properly and efficiently you must take him at 20
  1636
  years of age, train him under the most severe discipline, under the best possible officers, and the most elaborate organisation. Even then foreign countries are not satisfied, and there are far more long-service men serving in the German Army than in the British Army. As a matter of fact, they are doing all they can in Germany and France to induce the men to extend their service. We are not doing that at all. We think it is enough to take a boy—there are 18,000 in the Territorial Force under 20 years of age—and put him under partially trained officers and give him a fortnight's training, which is the maximum. What, in heaven's name, are we thinking of by adopting the system under which we are robbing the Regular Army of its best men and reducing that force? What do we mean by reducing oar Regular and trained force of officer, when everybody knows that officers are the one great need of our military organisation?
  I admire the right hon. Gentleman's efforts. I have not a single word to say against the Territorial Army so long as it is regarded in the proper light. I have no objection to it so long as it does not rob the fighting services of the men, money, and organisation that I believe they ought to have. I think there is every danger it will be so. I think they are being robbed now. I think the prospect is that they will be still further robbed in the future. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had said a little more about the part to be played by the Navy. He said truly that invasion is almost impossible. He might have gone further. But when I see these large sums being taken by the Territorial Army, coupled with the failure to supply the additions to the Navy that I believe to be absolutely necessary, I confess I become more than alarmed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us who the authority was that advised him that our soldiers, as organised, could hold their own in time of war against a foreign Army.
  I would like to say a word on finance—an important subject. These estimates are, so far as I can judge, like nearly every other estimate persented by the present Government—absolutely fictitious. They are not the true cost of the Army: nothing like it. The inevitable cost of the Army has to be met, and it is not met in these estimates. There are hon. Members present, members of the Territorial force, and I dare say members of the County Associations, and they know as well as I do that every member of that

  1637
  force is crying out because they say that the sums placed at their disposal are insufficient. We have the question of the old infantry battalion of the Army. We have been told by the officer to whom I referred just now that it is in his opinion absolutely necessary that we should restore the battalions to their old establishment. We should bring them up to 800 or 900 men. I agree with him. I hope in this case, as in many other cases, it will foreshadow the definite conclusion to be arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman. I have not the slightest doubt—everybody knows it—that you will have to increase the establishment of the battalions at home.
  It is not to be done now! It is to be carried forward. This alone will mean an additional £700,000 to the Army Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of building. He has spent nothing at all upon building. He is leaving it to the execution of those to come after. The theory was that you should obtain loans, and that you should have this sum reviewed every year in the House of Commons. I could see that point of view if there had been a transfer of expenditure from loans to the Estimates. Then we should have had a consistent carrying out of the policy to the conclusion.
  But what has happened? That we had no increase on the expenditure on loan. There has been a reduction. Now we are face to face with this fact, which the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, that all over the United Kingdom there are, at this moment, barrack buildings in urgent need of renovation. Some date from the reign of George II. Some were so pestilential—to use a coarse word, stank so—that we had to turn the troops out while we were cleaning out the filth.
  Mr. HALDANEmade an observation inaudible to the Official Reporter.
  Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTERYou are entirely mistaken. I took the money to pull the old barracks down and to put others in their place. The right hon. Gentleman, the moment he came into office, reversed that policy.
  Mr. HALDANEYou had three years of office.
  Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTERPardon me, I hadn't. I went down to the barracks, and found some of them in the state I have described. In Norwich, the capital of one of the most military counties in the United Kingdom, help was offered to
  1638
  us. My point is that the right hon. Gentleman knocked the scheme on the head, and allowed the men to go back to the same barracks.
  In Ireland, Scotland—in spite of the fact that he has spent a little money there—and in England there are places all over the country where money must be spent, and in large sums. I do not know why this necessarily should only arise a year or two from now. That necessity existed three years ago.
  Mr. ACLANDdissented.
  Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTERYes. What is the result? The moment someone is asked to conform to this appeal for continuity of policy, and take up the work of the right hon. Gentleman, the whole financial resources at his disposal will be called upon to make good the laches, the neglect, of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I recognise the zeal and assiduity of the right hon. Gentleman, and his ability with regard to small points. There are always at the War Office capable and enterprising men who attend to these matters, and we like to hear of them. But we should like to have been told how we stand now, face to face with the Report of the War Commission. We were told then—everybody knew it—that the Army needed more positive, definite reforms to make it effective in time of war. Not one single reform has been carried into effect. What was important—probably the most pressing to us—was the absence of any striking force at all. We all remember what happened when we were face to face with the crisis in Natal. We could not send a single battalion from the British establishment. We cannot now. When the right hon. Gentleman told us that the new organisation in Egypt in some way provided for and would get over the difficulty, I really think he was trifling. Is that really so? Suppose we had trouble in Somaliland or in Persia, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be desirable to send away the garrison of Egypt. The garrison in Egypt is there for the defence of Egypt. It is no more a mobile and striking force than a body of police.
  Mr. HALDANEWe could move a brigade from Malta.
  Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTERAnd when you move a brigade from Malta you have got to send troops from here. There has been no effort made at all to supply a striking force. We are always being told

  1639
  that we may be subjected to raids. I do not know whether that is official—I never can make out what is official—but I think the majority of authorities pronounce in favour of raids. Every Continental nation is in danger of raids, but does one of them ever dream of preparing against them in the way the right hon. Gentleman proposes? If we go to any of those countries we find that they have an organised mobilised force supported by proper fortifications, and ready to act on the first word of command. We have absolutely nothing of this kind if misfortune overtook us tomorrow; we could not put a battery or battalion into the field without mobilisation.
  We have made no provision for the employment, as a matter of right, of old soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman's only contribution has been to forbid more than ten per cent. of the soldiers of the battalion to extend. What is the result? The hope is taken away of serving for pension, and there are now four applicants for every vacant place in the navy. Yet the right hon. Gentleman is casting round the workhouse doors for recruits. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes; he sent out a circular telling the people not to have resort to the Poor Law, because they could come into the special reserve for six months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why should they not?"] Because money should be effectively spent on soldiers who are going to serve in time of war. Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman has not provided that most important requirement—the large reserve which we know we want when the Army is fighting abroad. So far from providing it, he has done everything in his power to diminish the existing reserve. In another couple of years that reserve will melt away like snow from a bank in an April shower. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the Special Reserve would in any way take its place I think he will be lamentably disillusioned. I have striven to put before the House what is the net result of all these changes, about which there has been such an enormous amount of work. My conclusion is that while you have saved money you have laid up a certain and much heavier expenditure in the future. You have destroyed the militia, and put in their place a smaller number of men, not a whit more competent to serve their country in time of war; you have destroyed those portions of the regular Army which were the very flower and pick of
  1640
  it; you have destroyed over a thousand men of the Royal Engineers, 6,000 of the Royal Artillery, you have got rid of a battalion of the Guards with its reserve, and you have got rid of eight battalions of our best infantry. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has diverted public attention to a lamentable extent from the true problem of the regular Army, and he has made people believe that an Army, which is attractive and popular, is a real Army. It is not, and to that extent he has put off inquiry into the work he has done, and made us less likely to be able to meet the enemy in time of war.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEWe have had a highly interesting debate between the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member for Cheshire as to the relative advantages of highly trained troops and patriotic volunteers. What we have to look to, as prudent and sensible men I hope, is to getting for our money the article which suits us in the peculiar circumstances of our Empire, namely, an Army paid for out of the estimates, and also a Navy, which we are not allowed to talk about on this occasion. It will not be out of order, perhaps, to ask the Secretary of State for War whether we shall be allowed an opportunity of discussing the Army and Navy together under sub-head E of the Treasury Vote. Those Members who were in the last Parliament six years ago will remember that we pressed very strongly for an opportunity to discuss the whole defence of the country. The Leader of the Opposition in acceding to that, which he deemed just and wise from the point of view of policy, stated that that item ought to be discussed not perhaps every year, but every two years, or at least within three years. We have had no recent discussion of that item, and I suggest that this year the Government should give us an opportunity of discussing the Army and Navy together. The late Secretary of State for War is somewhat satirical at the commencement which has been made with short enlistment in the artillery and at the principle adopted which is a return to Lord Lansdowne's in making a kind of long and short service, that is for the ordinary six or seven years' service and the new three years, the term of Lord Lansdownes' mode. The late Secretary of State for War regretted its disappearance last year and the year before, and its effect on the falling off of the reserves. That, I think, is the answer to his own gloomy predictions as to the future falling away of

  1641
  reserve. It was always certain, it is absolutely certain that if you introduce a number of long-service men, which we, curiously enough, call short-service men, of, say, seven or, indeed, eight years, it is certain the reserve must fall below the figure at which the Secretary of State for War says it must be maintained. He has given way to the fact now as regards artillery, and he is certain to give way, by the same consideration, as regards the infantry when the reserve falls. All the reforms that have been announced to-night, all those approaching variations are what is always playfully called the Cardwell system, whatever particular form it assumes in its operation since the Cardwell system was established, and which Cardwell would not have recognised in the protean forms it assumes. We now know that the Cardwell system in its essence, so far as my right hon. Friend supports it, is the system of Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of York. It is the old British Army system of linked battalions.
  All the reforms introduced to-night, after all, consist in undoing something, something we have lately done; for example, the three-year enlistments I have just mentioned, the increase of the Royal Artillery, some increase of the horses to the cavalry—still so ridiculously small that in the cavalry regiments we keep we attain a maximum of cost with the minimum of result, and largely because the horses are too few to train a regiment, while the Continental armies train one regiment more cheaply than we train three. The reform commended to us by the Secretary of State of the creation of mountain artillery is only a return to what was destroyed a very few years ago; aimlessly destroyed, and a curious example of the way in which in this country we live from hand to mouth on the fancies of the moment, which become the dominant consideration in the preparation of Estimates which are enormously increased in cost by these frequent changes. We had the mountain battery system of training here. The training was good apart from the guns. It was knocked on the head. There is nothing fills me more with shame and humiliation than that India can afford to pay for things we cannot afford, and yet, on the ground that our mountain artillery in India was very good, we destroyed them in England. All these are the re-doing of things that have been undone, except one, that I confess I can hardly understand, because it is the
  1642
  announced creation of something which I thought had always existed in every army at least since the time of Frederick the Great. I mean the system described in the very words that were used by the Secretary of State here to-night as to the "Etappen" command, and "Lines of Communication."
  I should not have taken part at all in this debate if it had not been for two or three matters which could only appropriately be mentioned on this occasion, as they are not so clearly in order as on this general motion. The first is the cost of the Army and the yearly increase. The Secretary of State said we need not expect some increases in the future, though he indicated an increase which would be necessary for the Territorial army might possibly be met by trimmings upon other points. In respect of that matter, I agree wholly with what was said by the last speaker, with a large experience of the past, that you can never make a large saving upon this Army Vote; you never can reduce what was promised by three successive Chancellors of the Exchequer of the other party in the last Parliament, you never can effect a substantial saving except by a change of system. The peculiarity of the Estimates of this year is that the automatic increase which we have always with us, if we do not change our system, is made in a manner once described in this House of a similar transaction by Professor Fawcett in the words: "What shocks me is the melancholy meanness of the transaction." Three years ago and two years ago we asked the Secretary of State for War what was going to be done with regard to the Indian contribution, and what he was going to agree to. He would not tell us, it was wrapped in mystery. But there was a belief on the part of some people at first that he was going to give up something of the claim made on India for Home charges in connection with the training of troops in these countries, and we were prepared in another debate for a good fight, in which the Secretary of State would have been made to disgorge, and when his colleague said that if he tried to get more from India, or not give up what he had got, he—
  Will find me a dragon in his path towards that Indian gold mine.
  This time the increase here is met by an increase of a contribution which it would not be in order for me to give my reasons for thinking was far too large, which, at all events, by the admission of Members of the Government was infinitely greater than we should dare make

  1643
  any of the Colonies pay. That contribution is increased by the very sum fixed by Pitt and Grenville to Barras as the bribe which George III. was to pay "from the revenues of India . . . without the necessity of ever disclosing the transaction." It is the same sum— £300,000— and we are getting neither the War Office case nor the counter-case as to the adhesion of the Viceroy's Council. I repeat that all of the ways of balancing our accounts this is one of the worst; and these secret transactions against the Indian taxpayer, who already pays far more than the colonist pays for the troops received, are a national disgrace.
  I wish also to refer to the recent speeches of my right hon. Friend. To-day he has roared gently; the dove of peace has been predominant in this debate. But certain speeches of his have alarmed me, and I thought that even from his own point of view they were calculated to spoil his own scheme. The weak point in regard to his proposals at the Colonial Conference was the manner in which they were treated by Australia. We have debated that matter three times; the passages are in "Hansard." I maintain my opinion that the right hon. Gentleman alarmed Australia. He was reproached for "Germanisation." Mr. Deakin said, "Our people resent anything in the nature of Germanisation." When Mr. Deakin went home he prepared a Bill, which was never passed, and he has now gone out of office. Any speech less likely to commend the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to Australia than that made at Newcastle I cannot conceive.
  Mr. HALDANEwas understood to say that Australia had assented to the proposals.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEThey have always assented to the proposals for the General Staff. What I am referring to is the large body of troops and the system on which they are raised.
  Mr. HALDANEThat is for them to decide.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEYes; and then, when it is for them and for them alone, to talk about "23 Army Corps," the "Army of the Empire," and so on! The words are these:—
  " . . . . 46 divisions, equivalent to 23 army corps. The army of Germany had 23 army corps, and no other army in the world had an organisation so great."
  Mr. HALDANEmade a remark which was inaudible to the Official Reporter.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEThat is what I say. I have never for a moment thought that we were going to have an Army, transportable across the seas, of half that strength. I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said when he heard about the 167,500 men as an expeditionary force, that it was too large, and that he could not make out what was intended to be done with it. It was too large, and it is larger still now. Surely if you have an effective Regular force that can strike across the seas, as good as any foreign army—a force of 170,000—that is big enough for the interests of this Empire. It is quite as big, if it be a really good and effective force, well commanded, with a real staff, as any army that we shall ever be able competently to handle across the sea. Why talk about these 23 army corps?
  Mr. HALDANEI never suggested that they would be transported across the sea.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEWhat does it mean? The right hon. Gentleman was speaking about what was possible—what they could do if they wished.
  Mr. HALDANEWhat they could do with their reserves if they chose. It is a Home defence army.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEThat makes the speech still less wise and more provocative. That is not an Army which can be compared with the German 23 army corps. We are not frightened by it, but we say that it was an unwise speech, calculated to provoke either alarm or ridicule abroad. If you talk about 23 Army corps, when you have no such Army to send across the sea, you excite ridicule. If you are prepared to have them, it raises the question whether it is a sound policy for us to have —as we are determined to have—an incomparable Fleet, which is to be greater than the combined fleets of any likely coalition against us—and at the same time an Army on this scale. I agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to-day—he is not afraid of invasion: I am not; he believes the fleet stands first, so do we. But this 23 Army-corps speech is inconsistent with that view. It is an unsound policy, and it is not the best way to go to work to secure the adhesion of such a country as Australia. That view is confirmed by all my correspondence from Australia, written long in advance of that

  1645
  speech, but always describing the ill-effect produced there by speeches and arguments of that kind. The last thing I have to say is cognate. It produces a similar feeling of disturbance and distrust. It is also inconsistent with our predominant naval position, and the absolute security from invasion which our naval position confers. There is a certain tendency towards Germanic ideas in the mind of my right hon. Friend. He has said so in almost all his speeches, and if there is anything that appears to us who belong to the naval school unwise and likely to lead to unnecessary expenditure for military defence it is any suggestion of German proposals for us. There are some who believe that the Territorial force is being raised by doubtful means, but I shall not dwell upon that, for I understand that hon. Members opposite will raise it in debate. The right hon. Gentleman says this is an entirely voluntary Army. Many of us in this House, especially the older men, have been led by similar means—not legal compulsion, but social compulsion or pressure—to enlist for service in the Volunteers. But that is a means which may do much harm when you come to the working classes, whom the right hon. Gentleman is trying to attract into the Territorial force. I will give one example. We have lost the rural volunteers. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] In my constituency there were three companies, and they are all gone. The numbers for the Territorials are made up from people in the county town. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is so in my own part of the country. While losing these you are calling more and more for the artisans and shop assistants in the towns. Here is what is being done. What I have found is that a man is put under pressure. He is almost forced into an active form of volunteering in connection with one establishment, and very likely in his next place the employer will not hear of anything of the kind. He may jeopardise his place and be out of work simply because the employer will not allow him to get the necessary time. I am quite aware that the authorities everywhere, if cases of that kind are brought to their notice, would be forbearing. I know that there are many such cases. I doubt whether it is a good thing for the permanent existence of the Territorial Army that so much pressure should be applied. I am not by any means an extremist on that point. There are many branches of employment where no such objection could be raised, but much pressure is now being applied, especially in the case of shop
  1646
  assistants, and I am sure it is a dangerous and bad thing for the Territorial Army. I am convinced that it does harm. It is not my right hon. Friend's well-considered opinion that he puts before this House that I am afraid of. I am afraid of his expenditure, because I do think if we have to choose amid the different branches of our defensive expenditure, and if you spend any money on the wrong thing, it cuts off the right one, and any money spent on an unnecessary branch of war service must come off the expenditure on the Fleet. It is not logical, but it is natural, and it is human nature that it should be done. I do not contest the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman has placed before the House, but the speeches he has made in the country do stick in the gizzard of a great many of us. I believe that such speeches will do harm to the cause many of us desire to promote.
  Mr. ASHLEYThe right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean has brought forward a very important point in connection with the Territorial force. He has referred to the action of the Alliance Assurance Company in regard to employees who join the force. Into the merits of that question I do not wish to go, because I think it is a matter between the assurance company and their employees. But I do think the members of the Civil Service who are members of the Territorial force have a real and substantial grievance against the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The Alliance Assurance Company say that they will give a whole fortnight's extra holidays with full pay—and that is, of course, plus the Army pay—to anyone of their employees who joins the Territorial force. What ever else you may think of it, it is a generous contribution on the part of that company. What does the right hon. Gentleman do in regard to the Civil Servants who join the Territorial force? He approves of the action of the Alliance Company, but if a postman or a clerk at Somerset House wishes to have a fortnight's extra holidays what does he get? He does not get the same treatment. What is sauce for the Alliance goose is sauce for the Civil Service gander in this matter. I consider that the State ought to be a model employer, but in this case they withdraw money from the Civil Servant who wants to serve his country and do what he can to help forward the Territorial force.
  Mr. HALDANEHe should not be paid twice over.
  Mr. ASHLEYThen why does the right hon. Gentleman approve so much of the action of the Alliance Assurance Company? Hon. Members below the Gangway need not be afraid that the Secretary of State for War is getting a severe attack of spread-eagle Imperialism. It has been said that the right hon. Gentleman has enlarged our land forces to an enormous degree, and that we have a great many more men in the land forces than we had when the last Administration was in office. Nothing can be farther from the truth. I think that I am right in saying that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon left office the Army was stronger—that there were better men in it, who were better trained—than it ever was stronger—that there were better men have heard how thousands of men have been knocked off the regulars. Not only have those numbers been knocked off, but the quality of the Artillerymen and Guards has fallen off. I admit that the Militia force was a decaying force, but it had a great position at Waterloo, Crimea, and South Africa. It was connected with the local life of counties. The county officers knew their men, and the men knew them, and in time of war the officers and the men went out together.
  No one could say that this Special Reserve has these qualities. By its very constitution the officers and men have not the slightest possibility or even probability of fighting together in time of war. The Militia in 1905 was 86,000, and the strength at the present moment is only 70,000, or a clear loss of 16,000. Only 100 officers have gone into the force out of 4,000 since it came into existence. The right hon. Gentleman says that schoolboys and young men from the universities are going to fill up the gap in the Militia. How do we know that these young men and boys when it comes to a three weeks' training will continue in the force? What is the result of doing away with the old Militia? I have during this winter visited a certain number of depots. In one or two the quality of the troop was excellent but in the majority of depots it was painful to see the boys of 15 or 16 years of age. They cannot possibly be of any use for war for three or four years.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNERThey are very much better than they used to be.
  Mr. ASHLEYI judge from what I saw. I quite admit that some of the depots were excellent, but in the majority of cases the class of men was deficient. I should
  1648
  like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he is so intent on preventing old soldiers from joining the Special Reserve?
  Mr. HALDANEBecause he will find a place in Section B. The Special Reserve is intended for a class of young men.
  Mr. ASHLEYThe Swiss keep their men in their active army up to the age of 40. You want men who will be able to train recruits in time of war. In 1905 the Yeomanry and Volunteers were 272,000 strong, of whom 175,000 attended camp. The substituted Territorials are 240,000 strong, or a deficiency of 32,000. The right hon. Gentleman has reduced our land forces by 82,000 men since he came into office. What has been the effect in the matter of cost? He has saved £800,000 and knocked off 83,000 men. In 1905 the Unionist Government were spending £1,400,000 on the re-armament of the artillery. Yet the right hon. Gentleman was spending £200,000 more now than was spent that year, and in spite of all this the right hon. Gentleman has very gravely neglected to look after barrack accommodation and the sanitary condition of the barracks. He very courteously mentioned that I had asked many questions on that subject last year, and he has devoted a sum of £270,000, that is £80,000 more than last year to this matter. I maintain that sum is grossly inadequate to meet the horrible state of things disclosed in the medical report of the Army. I will just give two or three extracts from the report. I think the State should be a model employer, and, mind you, the local sanitary inspector is not allowed to inspect military barracks or military camps, nor to see that the sanitary arrangements and the water supply is all that it should be. That being so, the State should be all the more careful to provide proper sanitation in those places. The medical report says:
  The old buildings of Cahir (1811), Fermoy (1804), Manchester (Hulme) Barracks (1799), Coventry (prior to 1794), Birmingham (1793), Chatham (unknown), Norwich Cavalry Barracks (1793) long since condemned are still in use, and though no outbreak of disease is attributable to their condition their out-of-date character and general defective sanitary state render them far from desirable habitations for troops. There are many other barracks chiefly in Eastern, Western, Southern and Irish commands reported to be in an indifferent sanitary state. In Ireland the building at Mullingar (1814) are mentioned as being old and considerably out of repair, while the Victoria Barrack hutments in Cork are referred to as delapidated buildings, rotting and full of vermin. At the Curragh the Beresford Barracks are stated to be rapidly decaying and getting beyond repair, the rooms being draughty, cheerless, and very cold in winter.
  Mr. VIVIANWhat is the date of that report?
  Mr. ASHLEY1907. It goes on:
  The wooden hutments at New bridge are described as being in a condition in which anything short of reconstruction will never make them satisfactory.
  Though, of course, things might be worse, I think the House will admit these brracks are in a very unsatisfactory state, and we ought not to grudge the Secretary of State any amount of money to put them into a proper condition. There is one aspect of the barrack question which I think is very objectionable, and that is the condition of the married quarters.
  In Ireland alone it is reported that no less than 150 out of 299 one-roomed married quarters are at present in occupation as such, and this number may be taken as a fair estimate of the general condition existing elsewhere.
  I maintain it is obviously wrong that such conditions should exist, and that married men should be obliged to live in one room with their wives and sometimes a couple of children. Surely Parliament, which takes such interest in social questions, and especially a Government which prides itself as being a Government of social reform, should not grudge £1,000,000 or even £500,000 to put things as they should be in those barracks.
  Mr. LUPTONCan you give us the size of the rooms?
  Mr. ASHLEYNo, I could not give the size; but if the hon. Member will visit any married quarters in any barracks, he will see for himself. Now I turn to another aspect of the question, and one which I think ought to be very seriously considered, that is, the defence of our great naval dockyards: Chatham, Portsmouth, and Plymouth. There is absolutely no land defence in these ports. There is a line of fortifications left in a perfectly defenceless condition. I do think this matter ought to be attended to. There is no country in the world that would consider it the best way to defend its dockyards was to leave them unguarded. There was nothing at the present moment to prevent 5,000 or 10,000 of an enemy marching straight into Portsmouth. An hon. Member laughs, but will he inform me what would prevent them? Very likely three battalions of Regulars would be there, but they could not stop them; there would be no guns, and a raid always is the occasion of a surprise. They would not give us warning so that we might have our Territorials ready. We see what is going, on in Denmark. The Danes are sensible people. They know they cannot attempt to defend their country entirely by themselves, but there is now a Bill for the erection of fortifications before their Legisla-
  1650
  ture, and if these are constructed they will be able to wait till the neutral Powers come to their aid. I think we are entitled to have from the Government some definite opinion as to what conclusion they have come to, and whether or not they consider this country can be invaded, or whether or not they consider that a raid can take place. Have they modified the opinion arrived at some years ago by the Defence Committee that a raid would not exceed 15,000 or 20,000 men.
  I presume that the Admiralty take the view that we cannot be invaded, because unless they take that view it is criminal on their part to allow Portsmouth, Chatham, and Plymouth to be in their defenceless state. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with the Admiralty, because if he agreed with them he would not spend some three millions of money and have an army of 300,000 Territorials in order to meet the raid. If the school prevails which says no one is to land why do we want these 300,000 men, and if the raid school prevails and 20,000, 50,000, or 100,000 troops can land our Territorial force cannot be trained in time to meet an enemy which comes upon our shores. If there was a raid or invasion we should have men trained for two years landed here, and we should oppose them with men half of them trained for eight days with two drills and the other half for 15 days a year. How can you possibly hope that 150,000 or 200,000 Territorials so trained can oppose men trained for two years? Even Switzerland considers it absolutely necessary that the infantryman should have 65 days, the artilleryman 85 days, and the cavalry soldier 90 days for training. The Secretary of State admits that we cannot meet them on equal terms, because he says one-third of the Expeditionary Force must be kept here till the Territorials can have six months' training. That gives the whole case away. Considering the changes which have taken place in the last 10 years—the size of steamships, the supply of steamships, and the organisation of the German navy and army—I think we ought to have some announcement from the Government whether they consider that a raid by any large force could take place. If they do not consider that it can, then it is perfectly unnecessary to keep up this large force of Territorials and spend large sums of money on them, but if a raid of 50,000 or 100,000 men is possible, then I say it is folly to suppose that men trained on the lines of the Territorial force can hold their own against a force of that kind.
  Mr. J. SEDDONBefore putting one or two questions I wish to express my utter amazement at the helpless and hopeless condition of this country as judged by the speech just delivered. We shall hear a different story when it comes to the question of the Navy, and we shall be told it is that that is the real defence of the country, and we shall also be told by other speakers that the present methods of dealing with the defence of the nation are as hopeless as those described by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The hon. Member says it is necessary to defend the Empire by an enormous expenditure of money, but I believe under proper conditions there is just enough of the bull dog left to defend these shores, and I am glad to know it has come into existence in the new Territorial scheme. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the early discussions of this new scheme of defence I supported it and looked upon it as a bulwark against conscription, which I abominate from the bottom of my heart. I believe that conscription is wholly alien to the spirit of the Britisher, and I was more than surprised when I found the right hon. Gentleman blessing the "Daily Mail" and its methods of recruiting for his Territorial Army. I was also amazed when he gave a certificate of loyalty to those employers who are using pressure—no other word can be used—using pressure to bring people in economic servitude under them to go into the Territorial force if they are going to earn their daily bread. I happen to belong to a pretty large section of the community—the shop assistants—and the conditions of employment have lost the Volunteers a good many recruits. With a substantial reduction of the hours of labour a good many shop assistants would join the force, but I am here to protest against a man's bread and butter being made to rest upon whether he will join the Territorial force or not. I do not know what is behind the right hon. Gentleman's mind, but I would remind him of a well-known retail establishment in Edinburgh, the name of which not many years ago was a bye-word among shop assistants. At the present time in London there are a large number of these joint-stock companies with managers or under-managers who are ambitious of becoming officers of the Territorial Army. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would be delighted if the large establishments in London—Harrod's or Whiteley's—were to have heads of departments composed of officers of the Territorial Army. In the
  1652
  case in Edinburgh a commercial traveller came in, and when he asked for Mr. So-and-So, was referred to Colonel So-and-So, who referred him to a major, who referred him to a captain, and so on down to a lieutenant, and everyone at the head of a department had a commission in the volunteers. It may be all right for the vanity of these men, but it is an encroachment upon the rights of the individual, and any person who joins the Territorials or the Army ought to have a right to do it of his own free will and should not be under any compulsion so far as employment is concerned. I am convinced that, so far as the "Daily Mail" is concerned, the Alliance Insurance Company and all the other firms who are pretending to support the right hon. Gentleman, are doing it with no other idea than either of getting a huge advertisement or getting for themselves the position of officers in the Territorial Army. I am not one of those who say there should be no defence of the nation. Notwithstanding what may be said against the old country, I think it is still the best country, and I am prepared under proper conditions to see that it is defended, not on the grounds laid down by the scaremongers, but to defend the hearths and homes of the people. I believe under proper conditions the workers of the country would be prepared to answer the call on a volunteer basis without any compulsion at all from their employers. What is the position of the shop assistant? The great bulk of them are under no lengthy engagement, but are engaged and liable to be discharged at a moment's notice. There is at present, I regret to say, a great number who are unemployed. It has been one of the misfortunes in the changes of industry in this country that a large number have flocked behind the counters or become clerks, and as a consequence, whatever may be the state of the labour market, it can be said with truth that the shop workers and the clerks are two branches of occupation which are overcrowded to a very large extent. Young men come up to London from the country seeking experience. They present themselves at those large establishments and they are confronted by the recruiting officer. They have come there to seek their daily bread, but there is a barrier raised, and they are informed that unless they are prepared to join the Territorial Force the vacancy will be left open for someone else who is prepared to comply with the conditions. That to my mind is neither honest nor fair. If we are to

  1653
  have conscription, in heaven's name let us have conscription, but let it not be used to say that the right hon. Gentleman has created a force for the defence of the nation when at the base of this growing force that he is so proud of there is tyranny and an attempt made to prevent these people earning their daily bread because they will not comply with the terms laid down by the prospective employer. If we are to have conscription, let it be all round. Let not a few shop assistants and clerks who may work for the Alliance or any other firm be picked out and have the alternative of becoming Territorialists or losing the opportunity of earning their daily bread. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will live many long years and occupy his present position. I am sure he has no idea at the back of his mind that in a year or two he himself will not still occupy his position, whatever happens, as Minister of War, to build this new structure that he has laid the foundation of. I hope he will. But if he is looking forward to that time he had better build with certainty rather than with the optimism which seemed to characterise his remarks this afternoon. If it gets abroad that the bread and butter of a certain section of the workers depends on joining the Territorial Force, those who would be willing to join as free agents will refuse to join because others are being penalised. The right hon. Gentleman's present method is neither honourable nor fair. I have no doubt it is very pleasant for him to go to Newcastle and get surrounded by enthusiastic employers. It may be very nice to read in the "Daily Mail" that this pet scheme is getting volunteers by the hundred every day. But I think, if he will reflect for a moment, that the best and surest road to success is the honourable straightforward road, and if he would give an intimation that he has no desire, but rather reprobates the pressure which is being placed by employers upon their workpeople, he would do far more to advance the Territorial system than by accepting the help of those men who are doing it for a huge advertisement or to get a commission in the force. With reference to the officers, it may be that under our present conditions for the Regular Army the officers must come from the privileged classes, with a few exceptions. They have time and money, and I admit frankly that the calling of an officer or a soldier, but especially an officer, is not the play nor the pleasant life that a good many people have thought it has
  1654
  been, and may have been, in days gone by. I believe an officer in the Army, whether foot, horse, or artillery, has to be a man who will give attention and devotion to his duties if he is going to do anything either for himself or for the Army.
  It may be that, until we get that economic freedom that I am looking forward to, when we shall have equality of opportunity, it is necessary, so far as the Regular force is concerned, to select to a large extent your officers from the privileged classes, but I do not think that holds good so far as the auxiliary forces are concerned. I think in the Territorial Army we might start on the democratic basis that, say, five years hence every officer shall pass through an examination, and that it shall be irrespective of the particular calling that he has in life. In visiting a Continental country where they have a citizen army, what struck me most was the fact that many of the officers who were at the manœuvres were the servants of the soldiers who were there as well. I had one concrete case where a major in the Swiss Army was giving orders to a non-commissioned officer, and it turned out that the major was a commissionaire at the bank and the non-commissioned officer was the manager of the bank. There is no aristocracy in brains and there is no aristocracy in bravery; and in your Territorial Force there should be, for young men willing to join, the incentive that in the course of time, by application and by passing an examination, they may, irrespective of their position in life or their means, hope to become officers. If the right hon Gentleman would allay the suspicion that men are being coerced into the Territorial Army, and if he would also support the idea I am advancing that the Territorial Army was to be a democratic force, he would get considerably larger numbers than he would get through the coercion by employers of men who are trying to earn their daily bread.
  Sir IVOR HERBERTI concur in every word said by the last speaker with regard to coercion being used to compel men to join the Territorial branch of His Majesty's forces. My belief is that as the Territorial forces become better known the compulsion will not come from above but from below. I have seen a great deal of the citizens' army both in this country and in the Colonies, and I have been intimately acquainted with a corps which was largely recruited from certain commercial houses and certain factories, and the esprit de corps created by the comradeship in

  1655
  these corps particularly connected with those industrial houses was such that it was an inducement to every man to come in. The employer did not intervene, but the pressure came from the men themselves, and I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that that is the right presure. It is the same kind of pressure which is exercised in the public school, the villarge club, and elsewhere to get young men to go in football teams or cricket teams. That is the form of pressure which we as Englishmen are accustomed to. I thoroughly agree that the intervention of the employer in these cases is most undesirable, and certainly should not be encouraged.
  With regard to the second point of the last speaker as to the democratic basis of the Territorial forces and promotion from the ranks, there used to be certainly in the Metropolitan volunteers, and there are to my knowledge in all the great Colonial militia forces, corps in which men are only allowed to enter through the ranks, and my experience of them invariably is that they are the most efficient. There, again, I think you get the most valuable form of pressure, the pressure of common opinion, public opinion, the opinion of comrades among one another. I do not rise specially to deal with this question, which has been dealt with so much better by my hon. Friend, but I rise to express the feeling of disappointment which I believe to be shared by many Members on this side of the House with which I heard the statement of my right hon. Friend to-day, and with which I read his otherwise interesting memorandum. That disappointment arises not from anything he said but rather from what he left unsaid. There was a great deal in the statement of my right hon. Friend with which I fully concur, and of which I heartily approve. If I were merely to quote these points on which I am in the fullest possible agreement with him, if he will permit me to say so, I think nothing could have been stronger or more lucid than his statement of the strategical considerations which had governed his policy. He is not a man who is frightened by bogies of invasion. Of that I need not say anything further. Then there is one of the important questions which interest me extremely, that of the Imperial General Staff. That is a matter in which I have been engaged personally for a good many years. I believe that I was one of the first who moved in that direction 10 or 12 years ago. Therefore I rejoice to see that
  1656
  it is taking definite shape, and that we are having an extension of the staff college institutions. I hope that the Colonies will be encouraged to develop those institutions which they have already got, like that very valuable Kingston College in Canada, and to advance that into a local staff college.
  Side by side with that I venture to hope that that which I have had before my eyes for years, the interchange of the units and officers of our distant possessions with those at home will be carried out to a greater extent than it is at present. All that seems to me to be thoroughly sound. I also rejoice to see the vast improvement that has been effected in the condition of the soldiers, and to hear the very interesting work of the medical branch under Sir Alfred Keogh, showing the result of his well-thought-out scheme, with its reduction of no less than 12 per 1,000 in the death rate in the troops in India and the Colonies, and a corresponding decrease in the number of men invalided home, and I say that the work that is being done in the War Office is better now than it has ever been. We have heard these results of the great measure of the right hon. Gentleman of two years ago, and they reflect great credit on him and those who have been associated with him. They are due, as we all know, in great measure to his own personal influence, his immense energy, his great enthusiasm, and his unfailing urbanity, which have all helped to make this Success. But what we did hope to hear something about was something that would have established a connection between the Estimates submitted to us and the general policy of the Government in relation to our foreign and Colonial policy, which has been marked by such wisdom and such moderation. There we are left wholly in the dark. The acts of the Government in the Foreign and Colonial Departments have been characterised by a peaceful tendency. That being so, why do we see in the military spending Departments a condition of things which rather recalls the stirring times not of a peaceful, but of a less peaceful Administration? There is another matter which has been passed over in complete silence. Comparisons have been made in the past by the late and the present Prime Minister, and other Members sitting on the Treasury Bench, between the military expenditure of the late Government and that of previous Governments. It has been shown again and again how in ten years the military expenditure of this country was piled up from £18,000,000 to £28,000,000, and there

  1657
  it remains. What we would like to know is whether the Government intends to go back at all to the more modest expenditure of former great Liberal Administrations. When are they going to begin? Perhaps it would be better for me to inquire, did they begin and end their reduction of military expenditure in 1906?
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNTThey never started.
  Sir IVOR HERBERTThe hon. Member says they never started, but they did make one spasmodic attempt towards virtue in 1906, but they have relaxed ever since. [An HON. MEMBER: "And fallen from grace."] The fact is that both in this House and outside there is to-day a greater and more insistent cry for a reduction of expenditure on armaments than there was in 1906. I will not speak dogmatically, but from my own experience. In 1906 the Under-Secretary for the Colonies moved a considerable reduction in the number of men, but I did not support him then, because I held that such a Vote at such a time would have been to express or imply a doubt in the Government and in my right hon. Friend which I did not feel at that time. I do not know whether I could do that now. The right hon. Gentleman says the Government have reduced the expenditure, but I will give him credit for his reduction by-and-by. I have some doubt as to whether the belief outside this House is not growing that when the right hon. Gentleman talks about retrenchment it is not seriously meant. The Secretary of State for War says he has reduced the Army. I admit that he has carried out the promised reduction in South Africa, but as far as the total expenditure on armaments is concerned there has been no reduction.
  There was, I admit, a considerable and substantial reduction during the first year the right hon. Gentleman was in office, and the lowest point was reached in 1907–8 when the expenditure fell to £27,141,000. The estimates submitted to us must be based upon the experience of preceding years, and if they show a certain figure in one year it is legitimate to accept that as a basis of what the expenditure should be in the following year. I will merely deal with this question in general terms. Looking through the Estimates given of a series of ten years and taking the various heads of expenditure, I see that in the present year, comparing them with two years ago, the decreases amount to something over £1,000,000, but they are counterbalanced by increases which considerably exceed
  1658
  £1,000,000, and, therefore, we remain practically in the same position. I feel obliged to say that there has been no grappling with that excessive expenditure on military armaments which was promised. I will not go into details on this point, because I do not think any useful object will be served by discussing mere technicalities. I do, however, hope that I may hear that before this debate ends from some authoritative source on the Treasury Bench what it is the Government intend to do to deal effectively with this constant chronic state of high expenditure which has been condemned by the Cabinet itself individually and collectively, and has also been condemned by the country at large.
  Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELDThe right hon. Gentleman said he was going to follow the example of Germany, and was going to loan out to farmers a certain number of horses during the winter months. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how, in loaning them out, he is going to assure himself that they are being properly cared for and looked after? Is he going to appoint special inspecting officers, or is he going to leave the responsibility entirely to each individual regiment? Are the officers of the individual regiments to decide on the horses which are to leave the regiment during the winter, and that are to be loaned out? Also if the farmer has a certain number of horses, or one horse, is that farmer to pay the War Office or the Department a small fee. Is it to be a sine qua non that the horses are only to be put to certain work? For, I cannot for the life of me, see that it would be a good thing for the highly-trained horses to be put to heavy plough work on heavy land, or that they should have to drag heavy waggons very many miles to a railway station, etc.
  It seems to me that if some rule is not made as to what these horses are to be used for by the farmer, very often perhaps—I do not say it would occur always—these horses will be returned in nothing like a fit and proper condition.
  Then there is this to be said about it: that if this loan of horses is to be done on a very large scale, I have a certain amount of fear that it will tend to make the farmer breed fewer horses—most certainly to keep fewer himself. I also fear that it will tend to supersede shire horses. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had in his mind the effect it may have upon the individual farmer, not only in keeping or

  1659
  breeding, but also upon the horses that should be at farm work—the shire horses. I was grievously disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the future supply of horses, and the breeding of them. It is an essential fact that if you are going to get horses, you must get farmers in England to breed them. I was disappointed that no remark was made by the right hon. Gentleman on the report of the Conference of 1906 on the Breeding of Horses for the Army. I would have liked to have heard some promise of future legislation to prevent foreigners coming into this country, and buying up all the eligible horses and mares that they can get hold of. I ask these questions in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman, or his representative, will see that there is something in them, and, by his replies, calm the minds of horse-breeders.
  Mr. JOHN WARDI wish to make a remark specially with reference to the subject that has been debated, or at least mentioned by previous speakers in this afternoon's debate. I mean I wish to draw attention to the fact that gradually under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the avenues that used to be open, even those few avenues that allowed the common soldier to rise above the ordinary non-commissioned ranks, are being gradually closed, and that the proportion of promotions during the term of his control, as Secretary for War, of the Army has gradually grown less every year. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary shakes his head, but I think it is only necessary for him to look at the figures of the returns which have been given on the subject to show that my statement is quite true—that the proportion is getting less and less. It is rather surprising that that should be so, because I understand that never during the Army debates in this House has so much attention been drawn to the dearth of officers. It is a surprising thing that our Army establishment, under the control of a Liberal Administration, is becoming more aristocratic instead of more democratic.
  No attempt is made to use the enormous—there must be an enormous—amount of real ability among common soldiers. No effort is being made whatever to secure that ability for the service of the army, and its organisation. Any wild-cat scheme to exploit the public schools and the boys in them, every suggestion, so long as it tends to maintain the aristocratic control of this branch of our public service, every-
  1660
  thing in that direction is considered, and not a single effort is being made at the present moment to secure the enormous amount of waste energy, that after a few years in the ranks finds it is utterly impossible to make a career, and therefore, I am afraid, retires in disgust.
  In discussing this subject privately with the right hon. Gentleman himself he said that he could not see how this could be done without considerably raising the salaries of the officers. I do not think that that is the way to solve the problem at all. I think that you will probably find that the salaries of the officers are quite enough as they are; for however much you raise the salary the man with a private income of £1,000 will be always able to live that much above the man who has not such an income. I think the tendency should be instead of raising the salary to limit the luxuries of the men. I think that some limitation should be put on conformable to the salary paid to the officer, and that it should be understood that better opportunities will be given to the private soldier to become a commissioned officer, providing he has the ability to rise. At present there is no chance whatever in the Army for a clever, but poor, man; no opportunity is given to him to exercise his ability. Apparently the Army is managed on the assumption that a common soldier never wants to be anything else, never wants to be a commissioned officer, never wants to study military tactics or organisation, or the history of the Army, in order that he may understand his profession. It is taken for granted in all kinds of debates that take place in this House that the common soldier would prefer, as it were, to be officered by an aristocrat, no matter how incompetent he may be. I hope the hon. Gentleman will convey to the Secretary of State my opinion, and that of the hon. Member who has just spoken, that there is a wealth of ability in the ranks and among the common soldiers if only he will pay a little more attention, and that he would not have to go so much to the public schools to cajole the lads into becoming officers if only he applies himself to making the Army a more democratic institution than it is. While in Switzerland I was struck by the democratic spirit which prevails in the Army. I went into a great engineering works at Zurich, where I found that the manager was in one of the battalions, and I could not tell how it was that one of his workpeople was an officer over him. I asked him how it was, and

  1661
  he replied that in the Swiss Army an officer must have been a good common soldier, and that he himself had always failed at shooting, and that was the reason he had never obtained a commission in the Army. I suppose some of our officers in the English Army are the worst shots, and ability as a common soldier does not count for anything in making promotion safe. In connection with the Swiss Army I learned that if a man of special ability, who knew himself to be thoroughly competent, had been overlooked by those in charge of the particular part of the Army to which he belonged, he could actually appeal first to his commanding officer and say, "I have so many marks; I am efficient in every particular, and I wish to have an opportunity for gaining a commisson." And from the commanding officer there is appeal to the Army Council. There were 24 common soldiers who appealed to the Army Council to be given their chance to become officers. The people have some sympathy with an Army like that. But with an Army where the poor men are to do the fighting and the rich men are to be the officers and take the high salaries you are not going to have a democratic or popular Army. The day has gone by for that. Now the young soldier is educated, his ideas are altered, and it is impossible to keep him in that condition of stoical indifference which previously existed in the ranks. I am delighted it is so.
  I think it is unfortunate that only 10 per cent. of the men are entitled to re-enlist again under the colours for the purpose of securing pensions. I appealed to the Minister for War the other day to see whether he could raise the percentage a little; 10 per cent. is a very small proportion. I think an opportunity should be given to the soldier to make a career, and even if he can only become a non-commissioned officer, he should have a chance of keeping with the colours so that he may, at least, having entered into the profession, have some confidence that he has a career before him, and that he will have an opportunity of continuing in the service. The other point is as to compulsory service. I have no objection to discussing anywhere the question of conscription or voluntary enlistment, and if the country decides for compulsion, we who disagree must submit. But I do object to the right hon. Gentleman and his Department introducing surreptitiously, without debate in this House, a
  1662
  form of compulsion which is the worst form that can possibly be adopted. If the State decides to compel citizens to join the Army, then the wealthy as well as the poor would be compelled to join and learn the goose-step. But the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opens up a phase of compulsion which hon. Gentlemen will see is not very satisfactory, looked at from any point of view. If this goes on, what would happen would be that the poor man who has to work for his living would be forced to serve if conscription were applied to him, whereas the wealthy and independent could refuse and would consequently be in a position of safety, with their individual liberty maintained, and, under those circumstances, I consider that it is the worst form of conscription that one could possibly imagine. You could not have conscription to defend our Empire unless you kept the young conscript for four or five years, and you could not do that in this country.
  When one comes to consider it, there is no necessity for this in the Territorial Army. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Territorial Army and the whole idea of it. I supported him in this House and I see no reason for objecting to it now. I see nothing attaching to the organisation whatever but what has been beneficial and may stave off the efforts of the National Service Association to force compulsory service. It has given unity of organisation and purpose, when before it was only a sort of military scrapping. It is organised on one basis and can be used effectively for the purpose for which it was intended. Compulsion is not necessary, and the thing so far has been a huge success, therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman has been ill-advised in sanctioning in the slightest degree the coercion that has been sought to be put on the workmen to join this branch of our service by employers who employ them.

POSITION OF THE PRIVATE SOLDIER.
Question proposed: "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Mr. GEOFFREY HOWARDcalled attention to the social condition of the private soldier and his chances of employment in civil life after the expiration of his period of training; and moved as an Amendment, to leave out from the word

1663
"That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words:—
"That this House, while recognising the marked progress recently made in improving the social conditions of the private soldier's life, would welcome further steps towards this end, more particularly by the opening of temperance rooms in all barracks where none exist, by developing the system of training the private soldier for after employment in civil life, and by multiplying the opportunities of such employment," instead thereof:—
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put.
Mr. HOWARDIn moving this Amendment, I wish to say I did not put it down in any spirit of hostility to the Government for what they have done, because anybody who studied what the Government have done for the last two years must be well aware that the Government is fully alive to the problem which faces them. I think, even taking that into consideration, more could be done to deal with this difficult problem, which I think is part of the greater problem which we have already discussed this Session and in other Sessions—the question of unemployment. Because, after all, in our short system of service, you take your man for seven years and you return him to the labour market. Unless you can provide employment for the man on leaving the active ranks it will react upon the recruiting, upon the class of men, and upon the whole spirit of the Army. I think a great deal more could be done by the Government to settle this great problem, because, after all, when a man goes into the army for seven years he cuts himself off from the trades and employment which require an apprenticeship, and he can never again, on re-entering the labour market, compete with those who at fifteen, sixteen or seventeen apprenticed themselves to trades, and have got a start of seven or eight years. I do think if the Government and other public bodies would throw open such employment as could be well filled by men who had gone through seven years' discipline and training in the Army, it would be an inducement to men to go into the service knowing they would have something to look forward to at the other end.
I would ask the Government how far they have been able to act on the recom-
1664
mendations of Sir Edward Ward's Committee. I know the War Office and the Secretary of State have been very keen on this matter, but I am not so sure that the War Office or the Secretary of State have always been assisted by his colleagues in other departments. I should like to know how far the posts have been filled up by suitable men of good character from the Army. Certainly, I know one case, that of messengers and attendants. The practise has been resorted to of filling up their places by people who have been in private service and not public service. I pass from that, and ask what the Government are doing to push forward the question of technical education, because on reading the report which has been placed before us for 1907 it strikes me that the results so far achieved are somewhat trivial, and not likely to be any more effective unless more money is available than a grant of £750, with which very little can be done.
There is a small reform, but still one which would benefit the private soldier in the Army, and still more materially benefit the whole condition of those in the Army. I refer to the question of temperance rooms in barracks. The request I put forward is an extraordinary reasonable one, and it is that the Government in their English and Colonial establishments should see their way to come up to the standard which has long been held in India. That is not an excessive demand. In India a room is set apart in every barrack for the use of the Royal Army Temperance Association, and the exact words of the Order are as follows:—
Indian Government Orders, 23 July, 1906.
A separate room shall be invariably allotted in barracks for the use of the R.A T.A., and a light bar for temperance refreshments shall be established in it. Under no circumstances is the R.A.T.A. to be displaced from the room alloted to it.
In England about 108 rooms have been granted, and there are 64 without rooms. I am making this request for the reason that where there is no room you find the temperance organisation gets weak and dies. Take the case of the Seaforth Highlanders. When at Aldershot they had a Temperance Society of 200 with a room, and in Edinburgh no temperance room, and they dwindled to 60. The Commanding Officer writes:—
This is simply owing to the want of a room and my men are disheartened.
The men themselves have shown great keenness in this matter, and in certain cases where they have been moved from barracks where there were rooms to bar-

1665
racks where there were none they have themselves at great expense dealt with the question. I find that the 2nd Yorkshire Regiment at York erected a room within the barracks at a cost of £300; the 33rd Brigade of Royal Field Artillery at Shorncliffe put up an iron room at a cost of £182; and similar figures could be quoted in other cases, showing real keenness on the part of the people concerned in this movement. Lord Roberts wrote on 22nd February last:—
I have no doubt whatever of the great value of the work of the association, and could separate accommodation be provided for the use of its members, the beneficial result of its work would he still more apparent.
The provision of rooms within barracks is essential to the effective carrying on of the movement. This reform has become the more necessary in consequence of an Army order issued in 1907, by which beer is allowed to be sold in ordinary recreation and other rooms; so that unless a temperance room is provided there is absolutely no place where the men can congregate free from the presence of liquor. Not only is the provision of such rooms of great assistance to the men engaged in this work, but it is extremely good business from the point of view of the Government. The work of this Association has led to increased efficiency—to decreased sickness, to economies in other similar directions, and to a general raising of the tone of the Army. Everybody knows how difficult it is to kill the old impression that the Army is an undesirable calling for a man to take up. There could be no better advertisements for recruiting than the men turned out by the Royal Army Temperance Association. I heard of an instance the other day of a man who, after serving 21 years with the colours, returned to his native village with savings of £200. What better advertisement for the Army could there be in that village? Sir Alfred Keogh, head of the Army Medical Service, in a letter to the Association, states that within the last 20 years the number of soldiers who entered the hospitals in India for alcoholism has fallen from 14 or 15 per thousand to 2 to 4 per thousand, and he attributes this to the effective work of the Royal Army Temperance Association. He concludes the letter by saying:—
I feel sure the improved bearing of the soldier, his better conduct, and his greater freedom from disease is, in a great measure, due to his more temperate habits, and this, in turn, may, I think, be justly credited to the good work of your association.
Moreover, there is an actual money saving. Here are the figures of a regiment on foreign service. Out of the battalion,
1666
½per cent. of the abstainers went sick against 2½ per cent. of the non-abstainers, and there were court-martialled in twelve months one abstainer and 44 non-abstainers. There were about 300 abstainers in the regiment. Hence, by encouraging the work of this Association you tend to make the Army more effective and more capable of doing its duty. In 1900 Sir George White took out figures for seven regiments in India, and found that there were admitted to hospital 49 per thousand of abstainers and 92 per thousand of non-abstainers. Taking convictions by courts-martial during 1899, there were four per thousand of abstainers and 33 per thousand of non-abstainers. All that goes to show that the work of this association has been extraordinarily practical and effective. My request is a reasonable one, and it could be acceded to in almost every case without any structural alterations. At Christchurch a room which was vacant was refused for many months, until the people organising the Association went to a higher authority, and the room was granted. But there must be many instances where, owing to the inertia of those immediately concerned, rooms which might be made available are not placed at the disposal of the Association. I would ask the Government, if possible, to carry out the order which at present exists in India, and which has been so beneficial to our work in that country. I beg to move.
Mr. MACLEANIn seconding this motion I heartily support the remarks of the mover, especially those in which he dealt with the question of temperance in the Army. Whatever may be said for and against total abstinence, most commanding officers will agree that when it comes to real work they put the men, as far as they can, on strictly abstaining diet. I should like to express my great appreciation of the action of the War Office in bettering the social condition of the soldier. It is a very wise policy, and quite consistent with the highest ideal of what discipline should be. A soldier, if he is to be made an effective unit in these days, must be treated not so much as a mere unit in the military machine, but as a man. We have had recent experiences in Germany of the treatment of the soldier as a unit in the military machine. We know from recent revelations how the evils of a system which loses sight of this fact has affected the German soldier from the humanitarian point of view. Those who are thought to be specially

1667
desirous of promoting Socialism in England have to point to the fact that the Socialists in Germany are largely recruited from the discontented in the Army. He has been treated there with a total lack of those conditions which we desire to maintain in the British Army. If there is one thing that is becoming more and more important, it is that the soldier should at certain times be capable of individual initiative. How are you to get that unless you try to develop his intelligence and initiative. Therefore the mover of the resolution most heartily welcomed anything which has taken place in recent years to better the condition of the soldier as a man. I think that in recent years there has been a most wholesome development in the treatment of the soldier in regard to messing allowance and kit. Those who know of the small tyrannies and the ridiculous inconvenience which were formerly placed upon the private soldier with reference to the kit, will welcome the recent change in the way of throwing greater responsibility on the soldier in the way of paying greater attention to himself. What has been done in the way of improving the accommodation in barracks has been wholly in the right direction. There are many large barracks, if not at home, certainly at foreign stations, say Gibraltar, which would require vigorous handling indeed on the part of those in authority, so that the soldier should be housed not only in a more self-respecting condition, but more in accordance with the sanitary requirements. Another improvement in dealing with the soldier for purely military offences is the new method of instead of sending him to prison of giving him a sentence of detention. That has, no doubt, tended largely to increase the self-respect of the soldier.
With regard to canteens, there are three systems on which they can be run—the regimental, the renting, and the co-operative. The regimental system has more or less fallen into discredit, and there is keen rivalry between the renting and the co-operative systems. Charges are made—I do not know whether they are justified or not—that the tenant caterer has not the "fair field and no favour" which might tend to get the very best out of the tenant system. A great improvement has taken place in the condition of the private soldier under three heads which are referred to in the report for 1909, showing the results up to the end of 1908.
1668
Most significant facts are produced under those different heads. In 1902 there were 15,009 courts-martial, and in 1908 7,181. Punishment was inflicted in 1902 in 14,433 cases, and in 1908 in 7,035 cases. The test of desertion is the best test of the social condition of the soldier. In 1902 the number of desertion was nearly 12 per thousand, and last year it was a little over 5 per thousand. That is a satisfactory state of things on which those in charge of the Army may be congratulated. After the soldier leaves the colours and becomes a post office employee, or a gaol warder, or a policeman the service which he has already served under the colours does not count towards his pension. That requires a very speedy redress. There are about 30,000 discharges into the reserve every year, and far more than half of them may be described as unskilled labourers. There has been a very large development of a scheme to train the men when they are with the colours so as to make them fit to take some place in the civil employment of the State. The urgent needs for measures of that kind is largely shown by the Poor Law Commissioners Report. The minority report of the Poor Law Commission speaking of the tragedy of the physical and moral degradation from lack of timely and appropriate help of a man who once possibly filled a permanent situation says—
It is only, another aspect of this tragedy that it is the men who have left the permanent situation afforded by the Army, and who, after more or less interval, have abandoned hope of getting any new employment of permanent character, who furnish the largest contingent, not, perhaps, of the professional vagrants, but of the floating population of the casual wards. What they aim at is to get permanent situations 'of trust' as it is called, as caretakers, bailiffs, gate-keepers, grooms, valets, chauffeurs, porters, clerks, etc., or as members of the Corps of Commissionaires. But only a minority of them secure such places. The others mostly sink gradually to the 'casual' class. Out of 1512 men who passed through the casual ward of a rural workhouse in the West of England in 1905, no fewer than 333 convinced the master that they had served in the Army (mostly producing their discharges). Of these, 136 were 'public works men,' and 107 labourers; these two sections constituting more than two-thirds of all the ex-soldiers. There were 10 painters, seven grooms, six shoemakers, and four each of carpenters, moulders, and gardeners; the others being divided among dozens of the most varied occupations. By way of contrast we may note that out of the whole 1512 men, in spite of the proximity of a great port, only 74 claimed to have been seamen; and of these eight were 'public works men,' and 13 labourers, most of the others being merely sailors on their way to other ports. Similarly, in the Church Army Homes, 'many of the men helped are ex-soldiers. In 1907, out of 1856 admitted to London Homes, 302 were ex-soldiers, 16.3 per cent.; and 22 per cent. of the men who passed through the Provincial Homes had been in military service. It is very rarely that any seamen apply for help.' In all our investigations into the tens of thousands of unemployed whom the distress committees have had in their hands, we have seldom found a seaman—practically none from the Royal Navy, and very few from the mercantile marine, p. 1183.

1669
Why is that? The reason is obvious The Royal Navy men are trained to use their hands and to become thoroughly effective men, and they are efficient when they leave the Service. What happens to the private soldier? He is turned out after service with the colours with little or nothing more than his drill. What is wanted is that there should be a large development of what I am happy to know taking place, namely, that a trade should be given to the private soldier while with the colours to fit him when he re-enters civil life as an efficient civic entity. I am very glad indeed to know that in a very large number of instances that is being done. I hope we shall hear from the Secretary of State, who has taken a very deep and a very keen interest in this whole question, as I very well know, and to whose efforts the private soldier owes a very great deal indeed. I hope we shall hear from him some announcement that this very serious matter shall be dealt with more effectively in the future than in the past.
Question proposed.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland)I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I were at once to reply with regard to the subject which has been talked of in the few speeches we have listened to, and then no doubt there will be other speeches on the same subject, but we hope this evening that the original Motion, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair," should be agreed to, because on Monday on the Votes A and 1 there will be an opportunity of discussing any subject which is in order on the production of the Estimates. My difficulty in dealing with this question of the social condition of the soldier is to know exactly where to begin, but I think it might be of interest to the House if I tried for a few minutes to follow the soldier from the time when he joins as a recruit and take him through the different departments of his life and see what happens in those different departments. First of all, with regard to education, using the word in the ordinary sense as a knowledge of reading, writing, and so on. I am sorry to say that still, although we get a very much better quality of recruits than we got some years ago, the ordinary education of the recruits is extremely defective. Still, 74 per cent., or nearly three-quarters of the recruits, are below the standard which we describe as standard 4
1670
in the elementary schools; of that 74 per cent., 43 per cent. are below standard 3, and 13 per cent. are below standard 1 of the public elementary schools. That is a very sorry state of things, both because the men are badly fitted when they go into civil life and because we need now in the Army a more highly educated man than we did in days gone by—a much higher initiative, and a much higher degree of self-control is demanded, and for this, education is needed. On to that very badly educated raw material we turn the Army schoolmasters. These Army schoolmasters are not absolutely up to date in their own trade, nor do they use perhaps the most modern methods of instruction, yet they win the confidence of the ordinary recruit, they do interest him in learning, and they educate him up to the point of taking one or more of the series of certificates we have. We have three certificates; the third is equivalent to standard 4, the second to standard 7, and the 1st class certificate is considerably higher. Thanks to the exertions of the Army schoolmaster, no less than 32,500 of these certificates were obtained last year, and the percentage of those in the Army awarded these certificates has risen in the last 10 years from 38 per cent. to 59 per cent., which is a very satisfactory state of things. Therefore, instead of only 25 per cent. of the recruits who reach standard 4 when they join, you have 59 per cent. of the serving soldiers attaining at least to that standard, and whereas only five per cent. of the recruits in the Army reach standard 7, there are 25 per cent. of the trained men reaching that standard and higher. As we owe so much to the Army schoolmaster, we have been trying to do something to improve his training efficiency. We have tried to do something in these Estimates, and also to add to the numbers of those men, that there may be more general instruction given.
We have brought both the system under which he is trained and the teaching which he gains under the purview of the skilled inspectors of the Board of Education. That of itself cannot fail to have a very excellent effect, and in return the Board of Education is recognising these schoolmasters who are trained under the better system which has been lately introduced as certified public elementary schoolmasters, so that they may have an employment to turn to when they leave the colours.
But, although it is a fact that we are getting a far better sort of recruit than we did before, it is rather lamentable to

1671
contemplate that three quarters of them come with an education less in standard than the ordinary child of 10 years old. It argues a terrible power of forgetting the drift altogether of one's school days. It is not in my province to say so, but how badly it shows that we are in need of some possibility at any rate of compulsory continuation schools to keep these young fellows in touch in however slight a degree with learning—reading and writing, and so on.
To go back to the recruit, let me, secondly, take the accommodation—barracks and so on—which he will find before him when going to his unit. There is a great deal to do in the way of improving old barracks, but, on the other hand, a good deal is being done. I find that in improving barracks, mainly with regard to sanitary matters, in the last three years our average expenditure has been £8,000 a year. This year we have been able to increase it to £16,000, and in the new barracks which are being built the recruit will find a far better system of providing proper accommodation for him than he would have found in times past. All the new barracks are being built with separate dining and recreation rooms, separate reading and writing rooms, and separate bath rooms, and all these are planned much more conveniently than they were in times past. Another matter now being rapidly improved is the lighting of the barracks. Nothing keeps the soldiers in barracks better in the evenings than having good light, where they can read or do what they choose to do. The Committee is investigating and spending money on experiments. Our average expenditure in improving and lighting in the last three years has only been £2,500, but this year we are giving £5,000, and as soon as this Committee, by its experiments, has been able to tell us what is on the whole the best system of lighting to adopt we shall go ahead even faster than that, although we have 11 barracks in different parts of the country and abroad lighted throughout, I think, with electric light. In the up-to-date barracks now being built the cubicle system is provided. This has been tried at Windsor, and it will be carried out in new barracks to be built at Edinburgh. It is well recognised that the system may make it sometimes a little more difficult to keep order, but on the other hand it encourages the best sort of men, and we find if we can get the best men into the Army they will look after
1672
those who are not of the same standard, and see that they do not kick over the traces and make a nuisance of themselves.
Now I come to the subject of canteens and the provision made for refreshment rooms and so on. We have been recently trying to carry out the theory that it is better to try to combine the canteen and supper-room, to have both conducted on the restaurant principle, and allow men to sit down with a glass of beer without necessarily having anything to eat, instead of making the canteen simply a bar and reserving the supper-room for temperance men. It has been considered better not to separate the sheep from the wolves, but to have the canteen and the supper-room together, and let the public opinion of the better men influence the others, and have the good effect which it always has. But that has not been found incompatible with making provision as is desired by this very excellent society, the Royal Temperance Association, in the new barracks at Windsor under the system that has been referred to, for the work of that society. The hon. Member has admitted the difficulty of providing new accommodation, but I can assure him we will do everything we can, wherever it can be provided, to see that it is provided, because the excellent work which it does is very fully recognised indeed. Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the great need of improving the married quarters. It is one of the things for which provision should be made in this estimate. I am glad to say that we have been able to increase the expenditure, which was considerable last year—some £43,000—to £84,000, an increase of £41,000, or very nearly double, and I believe that these very deficient bad married quarters that have been referred to will soon have become things of the past. If you take the recruit outside his barracks there again you will find an improvement. A great deal of good work has been done by religious bodies and others, often through the help of Army funds, in the direction of building institutes and clubs and in work of that kind. I should like to be allowed to pay a tribute to the work of the Rev. R. W. Allen, of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, who has been so very active and has done such extraordinarily good work in helping the soldier through the institutes for which he has collected money and so on.
I want now to say a few words about other attractions, not at all so desirable, which the soldier may find if he goes further afield. I refer to the question of

1673
sexual morality in the Army. It is a difficult subject, but I think that the House should know the extraordinary change that has been coming over the Army in that matter during the last five or ten years. A recruit, if we followed him, would find that very soon after joining the Army now he would come in contact, by listening to descriptions or having talks with selected medical officers and Army chaplains, who would put this matter very fairly and squarely before him—he would find that some of the worst evils that there used to be have already been tempered largely by the efforts that have been made through the Committee for the Moral and Spiritual Welfare of the Soldier, to which the House knows the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hon. Member for Central Hackney and the hon. Member for Dumfries, belong. About this work I hope we shall hear later in the evening. He would find, thanks to the work of that committee, that the sale of undesirable photographs has been put down at several of our foreign stations. He will find proper control now over the character of all entertainments given in regimental institutes, etc., and he will find very splendid work being done by the Whitecross League, about which some Members of this House may know.
I believe that has more to do with it than anything else. The officers join in the games and encourage the men more than they used to do in the past, and much has been done by the Royal Army Temperance Association and other bodies in this respect. The result of all the cooperation by chaplains, medical officers, and so on has been that whereas in 1897 of the six named groups of disease which caused discharge from the Army, this group of diseases due to this sort of excess came second. This group was very nearly the worst of all in 1897, but in 1907 it had fallen to being practically the least of all, and comes at the bottom of the list. Putting it into figures, it amounts to this, that whereas in 1897 the discharges due to this disease were 2£ per thousand of strength, they have now fallen to .3 per thousand of the strength of the Army. Taking the figures in another way, the admissions to hospitals are one-sixth in number to what they were 10 years ago. Without any more words from me the House will readily understand what an extraordinary far-reaching effect that has in all departments of our social life, and hon. Members will realise what a great work has been done.
1674
Turning to our recruits, we have done something in regard to the system under which they buy their clothing. Hitherto we have made a first issue in kind, and we used to continue in kind the different articles of equipment and kit as they wore out, but we had a very complicated system of giving the soldier credit for the value of those things which lasted longer than their official life. That was a very complicated system, and it required a considerable staff to work out and carefully estimate the length of life of every article supplied. All that has now been swept away. The recruit will receive his first issue in kind in future, but he will afterwards be given a money allowance quarterly in advance to maintain both his clothing and kit. If he is careful of his clothing the soldier will benefit at once every quarter by his care, and instead of having balances carried forward, which he never understood, at the anniversary of the day of his enlistment he will have a more direct interest in the care of his clothing and economy in its use than he had before. We are trusting him more by making these grants in advance than we did before. The thing that pleases me most is that there will be a saving by the new system, not at the expense of the soldier, but owing to the simplification of the system.
During the last year a new system of physical exercises has been introduced, and this was referred to by the Secretary of State this afternoon. What has happened is that instead of having violent chest-expanding and muscle-producing exercises, which so often caused a great strain upon the heart and lungs, we have adopted a more reasonable, moderated, and graduated course, based upon the Swedish, and modified by the Danish, system, and a very great improvement is the result. And I may mention that there has been sitting for some months past an important committee under the Director-General of the Army Medical Service to investigate the physiological effects of food, clothing, and training upon the soldier. That has helped the working out of the form of kit which has been referred to this afternoon, which allows the soldier to have his tunic entirely open during the march, and not tied across his chest at all. That has produced already, where it has been tried, a great improvement in the distance that the men can march, and the weights they can carry without any undue fatigue. They are also working at the scientific composition of the men's rations, and investigating methods of marching, the best time of day, the proper periods of rest, the

1675
times at which rest should be taken, and so on—so as in all ways to get the most work, with the least discomfort, out of the men.
The House may think that all these things are little in themselves. They include improvement in education, in barrack accommodation, in getting reasonable amusements for the men, and so on, improvement in clothing, physical and moral improvement. I think they have a cumulative effect. We are taking the soldier more as a reasonable being, and he is responding in a very marked way. I should like to show the effect, so far as figures show it, that this improved treatment of the soldier has brought with it. At the end of last year it was found possible at Aldershot to discontinue the system of sending out picquets every night through the town. That has had the incidental effect of relieving 500 men per week from an irksome and unpleasant duty. A sufficient time has elapsed to be able to judge of the success of this experiment in trusting the soldier to behave. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief at Aldershot recently reported as follows:—
I am glad to affirm my belief that the alteration has, on the whole, been for good, and that its result indicates that trust placed in the soldier to-day is not misplaced.
The same system has been adopted in the Northern Command, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief there says:—
I concur in the belief that the rank and file of the Army can, under all ordinary conditions, be trusted to conduct themselves in an orderly and soldierlike manner.
So that I think we may consider that the experiment has been so far quite a success. No doubt it will be gradually extended.
Then there has been a very remarkable decrease in the amount of crime. The House knows already what excellent effects were produced by substituting the detention barracks for prison. A man feels in detention barracks that he is not the gaol bird that he has been too apt to feel before. He gets in these detention barracks a very excellent system of education and training. He is engaged in making useful things, and in physical exercises would do him good. The system has been so strikingly successful that it must interest the House to know that Lord Charles Beresford, on inspecting one of those big detention barracks, came to the conclusion that the system ought to be adopted for the Navy also. With regard to the figures of men under punishment, the average daily population in prison, the
1676
percentage, has decreased from 8.4 in 1904 to 3.7 in 1908. The offences have decreased from 16,300 in 1904 to under 10,000 in 1908.
Looking at it from another point of view, we may consider the figures in relation to discharges from preventable causes, though, of course, death cannot be included among preventable causes. It is interesting to note that owing to the improved health of the troops, in three years there has been a decline in the number of deaths from 1,336 to 1,091; the number invalided has declined from 3,736 to 2,317; the number of those who purchased their own commissions has declined from 1,030 to 764; and the number of those discharged for misconduct has declined from 2,821 to 2,023. The total decline under these four heads in three years has been from 8,320 to 6,195. There has been special care with regard to the selection and better training of recruits, and the proportion of invalids per 1,000 effective men under two years' service in 1903 was 22, and in 1907 it was 12. I cannot do better than close this part of the subject by stating that if any hon. Members interested in these matters wish to go to Aldershot they will be welcomed. It is not my invitation, but the invitation of General Dorrien Smith, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. There was a visit to Aldershot two years ago, and though hon. Members may not see cavalry charges and so on, they will be interested to see how the recruit is educated, clothed, and trained. In regard to the employment of the ex-soldier, our object in training men for work after they have left the colours is not to enable them to compete with the members of skilled trades, it is not to find them back doors to well-paid jobs, but it is to fit them for habits of civil work rather more than they have been in the past, to undertake the ordinary responsibilities of citizenship. It has been said in this House that old ideas on this subject rather belong to the long-service system than to our Army as it is organised at present. But once a soldier always a soldier, and when he has ceased to serve with the colours he should receive his pension, and there should be an opportunity of his obtaining work.
Short service is our sheet anchor in this country to both efficiency and economy, and employment is essential to securing both efficiency and economy. With regard to efficiency, it is, I think, acknowledged by the best experts we have now that there is a rapid deterioration in an Army which has to do the work our Army has to do over the age of 30. I am not talking

1677
of technical and departmental services, but services on the line. You get the best fighting material under the age of 30, and that is what we obtain now. The ordinary man serves from 18 to 25 with the colours and from 25 to 30 with the Reserve. So that we do get the men on our present system during the best part of their lives, and this must be remembered also, that the men during their reserve service from 25 to 30 are every bit as much part of the first fighting line as their comrades who are undergoing the first seven years of training. They are called upon absolutely at once when we mobilise, and if those men are not being properly looked after and not getting proper employment they will not be efficient when they return to the colours. Therefore it is of the first importance to see that all the men who go at any rate with good characters should have the very best chance of future employment.
With regard to economy, there is this to be said, that if we are to attract the best class of men into the Army they must know there is a reasonable chance of employment when their short period of service comes to an end. I believe to a good man that is far more of an attraction than the rate of pay while he is with the colours. I believe that the great increase we made to the pay of the regular Army, which is still responsible for one of the largest items on our Estimates, has had very little effect in getting a better class of recruit. To get a good class depends almost wholly on what we can offer when his seven years of service is over. The best man is the cheapest. There is less crime, there is less doctoring, there are fewer discharges, fewer desertions, less waste all round, and therefore it is only by attracting the best men that we can permanently hope to get the best value for our money. There is also this point, if we cannot give a guarantee of employment we should have to set up a system of pensions if we once had to confess that even if men went out with good characters and with every desire to do steady work yet could not get that work, it would be very difficult to resist the claim in spite of the short-service system that pensions would have to be paid. Once we begin that we get a vast load of extra taxation. The avoiding of that extra load is only justifiable if proper machinery exists for finding employment.
Mr. JOHN WARDYou pay pensions to everybody except the common soldier.
Mr. F. D. ACLANDI do not think we pay pensions to anybody for seven years' work. I know that if I was a Civil Servant I would have to be at work for ten years before I would get a pension of ten-sixtieths or one-sixth, so it is not exactly true that we pay pensions to everybody except the private soldier. We pay pensions to the private soldier or non-commissioned officer if he stops on twenty-one years. We do not consider it necessary to pay men who have only served seven years with the colours and retire at the age of about twenty-five.
Mr. JOHN WARDBut you make a regulation that he shall not serve ten years.
Mr. F. D. ACLANDThat is quite true, and I am coming to that. While admitting to a certain extent the extension, we can be sure of having the proper size of army reserve and can be sure of not having a very swollen pension list that would cause a very considerable increase on the Army Estimates. While the regulation is 10 per cent. I have found frequent instances where that 10 per cent. has been very considerably exceeded and the opportunity allowed to stay on and qualify for their pensions. The importance of obtaining employment on leaving the colours being so great, the House will ask what have we done; what remains to be done; do we actually get employment for all ex-soldiers; if not, why do we fail? On this matter it is necessary to give certain warnings. There are certain men join the Army who almost inevitably will not settle down to steady employment when they leave the colours, and who would not do so whether they joined the Army or not. I worked for some years in a boys' club at Notting Hill; I knew the class of boy there perfectly; he habitually played truant from school; he submitted to be taught reading and writing in the boys' club only because of the laxer discipline; he would not take any work more definite than that of a van-boy; he saw a lot of life in London hanging on to a string at the back of a van, but he would never settle down to anything more tied than that. There is a vagrant class which will never settle down to permanent work. We have tried again and again to get boys to enter permanent employment after a few years as van-boys, but we generally find at the end that they enlist. Enlisting is about the only chance that boys of that class have. The Army gets hold of a lot of them, and makes them steady. Many, however, remain sturdy rovers all their

1679
lives, but they have to thank the Army that they are sturdy, and not blame it because they are rovers. Hon. Members may ask why we take this class if recruiting is so good. We are glad to get them, because they make the very best sort of fighting material in the world. We get now a large proportion of men of perfectly good character, and they can get hold of the rovers and bring them into line. We do not want all our recruits to come from the Sunday schools; we are glad to get these others; they make excellent soldiers. When you allow for this class, I think the House will agree that the results obtained are, on the whole, pretty good. 1908 was not a good year for employment, but of the 24,000 men who in that year left the colours with characters either "exemplary," "very good," or "good," we know that 21,000 got employment, and, of course, there must be many more of whom we have not heard. But more can be done. In the first place, a good deal could be done by organising the agencies at present engaged in trying to get employment for ex-soldiers. They are largely unco-ordinated at present. The House will remember that under Clause 2 of the Territorials Reserve Forces Act, one of the duties put on the County Associations is the care of reservists and discharged soldiers. Movements have been made to get the Association to undertake that work at once, but we thought that they had got such a great amount still to do, and that the work naturally took such a great deal of time and energy, that it was unfair to put this extra work upon them at the present time. That has this practical bearing, that the subscriptions which have hitherto so generously been given to the voluntary associations are every bit as much needed as before, and I cannot announce that that work which has been so efficiently done by those voluntary associations has yet been taken off their shoulders by the County Associations or that there is any very near prospect of that being done. I think we are bound to pursue, and if possible extend, the experiments we are making in trying to train the men to trades before they leave the colours. The Mover of the Amendment said that we ought to have more money for doing it, and that the sum now allowed is not sufficient. I shall welcome all the good offices he can use with the Treasury to let us have more money.
Mr. HOWARDCan the hon. Gentleman
1680
tell us how far the recommendations of the Committee have been met by the Departments?
Mr. ACLANDI think it would be very invidious to name the Departments which have set a good example in the matter of engaging Army men. We cannot ask them to abandon established customs all at once, but we know that of 24,000 men who left in 1908, 21,000 have found employment. On the whole that shows that the Departments, and certainly the Post Office, have done their best to try to make all the vacancies they could for the men leaving the Army.
Colonel IVOR HERBERTMay I call attention to another recommendation of the Report with reference to line men going into the Civil Service having the time of their military service counted towards pension in the Civil Service?
Mr. ACLANDThat has already been referred to. There is a big principle involved, and as it can only be decided by the Cabinet, I do not think I should deal with it.
Mr. CROOKSWill you try to persuade the Cabinet?
Mr. ACLANDI want hon. Members to notice the latest report, which shows that the trades we have been most successful in getting soldiers to adopt are not those which compete with organised labour. We are not trying to cut out trade unionists or to provide fully trained men who have been through an apprenticeship or anything of that kind. The largest classes are chaffeurs, 271; gardeners, 230; men trained for commercial and clerical work, 538; and waiters, grooms, etc., 377. My difficulty has been all through not so much to find jobs for men as to find men who will consent to be trained for jobs. It is rather difficult after a period of Army service, however reasonable it may be, to make a man settle down to the ordinary pursuits of civil life. But a great deal has been done by lectures in acquainting the soldier with the chances he has got and the difficulties which he has to face.
Another matter which has been going on recently in Scotland is the work of the religious bodies looking after the soldiers. In Scotland that work is comparatively easy, because the ecclesiastical army is strong there. The recruits have been asked with what ministers have they been connected, and to my great surprise—and I do not think it is possible in England—95 per cent. of the recruits have been able to name their ministers.
Is that the cause for enlisting?
Mr. ACLANDWhen a soldier leaves the colours his papers are collected, and he is put in communication with the minister of whatever religious denominaton he belongs in the place in which the soldier is to settle down. In that direction a great deal of work is being done on behalf of men with good characters and of men with less good characters. This operates in both ways, for not only is a soldier in touch with the minister, but the minister is kept in touch with the soldier after he has left the colours. The families have been so pleased with the fact that the soldier has been put in touch with the Army chaplain that whole families have become ardent churchgoers. There is still a third way in which this has been worked out. When a soldier goes home on furlough the chaplain communicates with his minister at home, and the result is that when the furlough comes to an end the minister of the place looks after him and sees that he returns to the Army. Another point I want to make is in connection with pensions. Pensioners hitherto have not been able to commute their pensions before the age of 50. That is rather hard. Commutation of pensions wants very careful watching. I have been able to provide £40,000 to allow men who, after 21 years, leave the colours at the age of 40, to commute at once.
Mr. JOHN WARDDo you think that advisable?
Mr. F. D. ACLANDWe do consider it is advisable. Each case is carefully considered by the Chelsea Commissioners, and a pensioner cannot commute at all unless he can get them to certify it will be to his advantage. Often men try to commute at fifty, but it has been found that they have not then the energy at that age to make the best use of the opportunity, and it has been found necessary to make them retain at least 1s. per day, which will be a very popular thing to do. I think I am justified in claiming that we have tried to do, and are proceeding to do more than ever was done before for the welfare of the soldier and the ex-soldier. The old reproach that the soldier was a blackguard while in the force and a wastrel when out of it has almost altogether disappeared. We treat the soldier well, and look after him better than ever, and the result is we get a better and a cheaper Army, and one which is more in touch with the life and sympathies of our people.
Sir GILBERT PARKERI think the House ought to feel grateful to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, because it enabled us to hear, just now, a speech from the Financial Secretary to the War Office, which will give great satisfaction to the public generally who are interested in the Army. The position of the soldier in the Army to-day is, as the hon. Member has pointed out, vastly improved. His pay is better, his housing is better, his food is better, his general character is better, and, as we have been assured, the Scotch minister looks after him when he leaves the Army. I can only hope that the right hon. Gentleman who has been such a powerful influence in improving the Army of late may be able to secure similar relations between the English soldier and Dr. Clifford or Dr. Campbell of the City Temple, and so add to the benefits he has already conferred upon the Army.
I, in my younger days, was associated with the Army, and everything concerning it has deeply interested me. My father served with the colours for many years, and my associations have been such as to induce me always to take an interest in the Army, and I think the necessity of making the position of the soldier better cannot be taken too greatly to heart, and the necessity for producing results commensurate with our needs. These needs could never have been met after the South African war had it not been, and I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman will agree with what I state—had it not been for the strenuous effort made by his predecessor to better the condition of the soldier in the Army, which was supported so strongly by the House and the country at large. I do not want to detract in the least from the admirable work of improving the condition of the soldier which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have carried out. I do want to say, however, that we must not think from the improvement that has been made—because, after all, Ministers do give somewhat rainbow colours to results—we must not be satisfied with what has happened. The pay is better, the food is better, the barrack accommodation is better, but we require also a good deal more sympathy, if I may respectfully say so, from hon. Members who are closely associated with the representation of the Labour party, because I notice whenever the question of employment of ex-soldiers is mentioned, hon. Members below the Gangway are

1683
apt to interject cynical and doubtful remarks about the soldier and his opportunity.
Mr. CROOKSWe think he ought to be a member of Parliament.
Sir G. PARKERThis is a very serious question, and I have noticed that curious jealousy of Labour members and the opposition to the soldier being allowed to compete with the civic workman in industrial work.
Mr. JOHN WARDI am sure that no speeches which have been delivered by Labour members ought to lead to that impression. We do not want the preference given to the soldier to turn a person out of his employment.
Sir G. PARKERThat is a very reasonable statement, but I have been in this House for a number of years now, and I have noticed that there is a tendency to cramp the ex-soldier who is searching for employment. I regret it extremely—
Mr. CROOKSThe fact is—
Sir G. PARKERThe hon. Gentleman will have a chance to reply.
Mr. CROOKSI do not want a chance.
Sir G. PARKERI regret it if it is a fact, but if I have the hon. Member's assurance to the contrary, I at once withdraw, but that is the impression created on my mind. I want to say something about the employment of soldiers after they have left the Army and what is being done now to fit them to take part in the battle of life when they receive their discharges. Under the old system, with long service, the soldier was absolutely incapable of taking part at all in the battle of life when he left the Army. No one who knows the old soldier 25 years ago but realises the truth of what I say, that not one out of 100 was fitted to compete with the ordinary citizen in the struggle for bread. But things have greatly changed, and it is due to the fact that we have a new conception in the mind of the public concerning the soldier, and we have a new conception in the War Office. The Army retained the severity of rule and a rigid view of the life of the soldier much longer than it was retained by the public at large. There has been a great change, due to the predecessors of the right hon. Gentlemen and to the right hon. Gentleman himself.
Just a word or two concerning the employment of soldiers after they leave the
1684
Army, and what the Army organisation is doing now. I do not think it quite satisfactory. I think £2,000 is set apart in order to give the soldiers technical instruction to fit them for trades, more or less skilled, some unskilled, when they leave the Army. But I do not find from the reports of commanding officers that as satisfactory results have been achieved as we could well desire. It is an extraordinary thing that only 3,000 men in the Army have taken advantage of the technical instruction offered them during the last year. The commanding officer of the Northern command gives a reason which I believe to be a sound one. He says the soldier is so hard worked that he really has not time to take advantage of it under present circumstances, with the result that for instance at Gibraltar there were 144 who entered for the instruction, and only 18 went through the course and secured training. There must be something radically wrong. These men paid their fees for the course, and dropped out by the score. We must come to the conclusion that there is still much to be done in solving this problem on the part of the Army authorities and on the part of the Minister for War. If we believe that the soldier is as a rule unfitted to enter the battle of life after he leaves the Army to compete successfully with those who have been in civil employment, we ought to prepare him and the Army has set apart a small sum, but it is too small, and the organisation is evidently unsatisfactory and incomplete. It is said in this report that about 75 per cent. of those who leave the Army expect to get employment through their friends or various avenues; and 5 per cent., I believe, it is said would never seek employment in any circumstances; and the other 20 per cent. depend upon chance. If there are 20 per cent. not provided for that 20 per cent. should be encouraged while they are still in the service to take advantage of the technical instruction. I do not think too much importance can be attached to this system of technical instruction in the Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War is very much in love with the German system. The whole basis of the German system is a basis of technical instruction. A great many people in this country—I suppose a majority in this House—would be opposed to conscription. But there is one thing in connection with conscription which we could urgently recommend: that is this principle of technical instruction which has done more to

1685
build up German industry than perhaps anything else. It has returned to civil ranks scores of thousands of men who are prepared to take their part again in the struggle for existence in the industrial world.
I believe that the Member for Woolwich the other day made a very strong appeal on behalf of the Territorials, urging that every young man should join the Territorials and fit himself to defend his country in time of national peril. I would ask the Labour Members to carry that a little further and not be afraid of what the soldier may do if he is fitted in the Army to take his place again in the industrial struggle; because if he cannot take his place in the industrial struggle when he leaves the Army he only becomes a charge as the Financial Secretary pointed out a little while ago, on his fellow citizens, only tends to degrade the industrial life of the country, only adds to the casual labour, and only prejudices his fellow citizens against the Army. I believe that the number of those who are prejudiced is a very decreasing number. The Under Secretary for the Colonies shakes his head. I hope it is with approval. No man has done more in this House to speak for the private soldier and the improvement in his position than The Under Secretary for the Colonies the Amendment of the hon. Member only draws attention to this matter of employment of the soldier on leaving the Army it will help to solve a problem whose solution will increase the general welfare of the country and the prestige of the Army in the best sense—that is to say, it will attract to the Army the best class of men. The standard and character of the men who have entered the Army during the past ten years has risen, and if you make the Army attractive by giving happy and agreeable surroundings and providing through instruction the possibility of employment after leaving the Army, you may be quite certain that what the right hon. Gentleman so much desires, namely, a continuous stream of recruits for his Expeditionary Army will be forthcoming. Under those conditions that stream would continue to flow in an increasing volume, and a better class of man will be attracted to the Army than we have ever had before.
Mr. GULLANDI join with the hon. Member opposite in thanking the Financial Secretary to the War Office for his interesting and helpful speech. The chief thing that has occurred to me on this subject has been the enormous influence
1686
of a sympathetic commanding officer. With a commanding officer who is interested in his men they can be made as happy as any other section of the community; but when they have a commanding officer who takes little or no interest in his men they do not have the pleasant and comfortable time which they ought to have. I have been very much struck with the improved type of recruits who are now joining, because they are a much better class. For one thing the younger recruits do not drink, and they spend their money more on sweets and sausages and on things which they call tasty. I think we owe a good deal to those soldiers' homes to which the Financial Secretary referred, where these young men find good surroundings, and are afforded the opportunity of forming a friendship with devoted ladies who give their lives to that kind of work. I have had occasion to visit barracks on a very foggy day, and I know how cheerless some of the rooms are there. I can well understand the desire of any soldier to get away from those dark, uncomfortable cold rooms and enter the warm, well-lighted public-houses, the owners of which are only too ready to bid him welcome. I know that now there are dining rooms where the men have more comfort, and cubicles have been provided. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that the weak point is the education of the soldier. To me the trouble seems due to the fact that the soldiers are only taught to obey and the tradition that lingers that a soldier is still regarded very largely merely as a fighting machine. His initiative is not encouraged, and efforts should be made to get him to take advantage of the technical instruction which is waiting for him. If the soldier on leaving the Army has to compete with the much more highly trained civilian who has attended evening continuation and technical instruction classes, the War Office will have to look into this matter and bestir themselves much more thoroughly. It is all very well to have a man who obeys orders, but there may come times in actual warfare where the power of initiative might be useful. Then I should like to return to one point that was urged by my hon. Friend, and to which the Financial Secretary made no reply. He was moderate in his statement and that was in the barracks there should be set apart a room for the Army Temperance Association.
Mr. HALDANEWherever we can we give a room.
Mr. GULLANDYes; but you ought to give it everywhere. The hon. Member quoted the case of Edinburgh Castle. I know Edinburgh Castle. If there is any place in the world where there is a necessity for a temperance room it is in Edinburgh Castle. He is going to build, it is said, new barracks near Edinburgh, in a beautiful country district. I hope that he will take care that there are all the possible improvements and advantages that can surround the life of the soldier. I was glad the Financial Secretary referred to one thing: the question of the civil employment of the soldier after he leaves the Army. In Scotland the authorities have the invaluable assistance of Dr. Mackay, and in this case, as in many others, the man is of much greater importance than the Committee.
There is one other matter which I would like to refer to. The Financial Secretary said that last year 2,300 men left the Army medically unfitted. He did not tell us what happened to them. There was a proposal to utilise Dumbarton Castle for this class of men for a convalescent home.
Lord BALCARRESA very damp situation.
Mr. GULLANDThe locality perhaps is not so salubrious as it might be, but I am glad he is going to provide a place for men sent home invalided, where they can have breathing time and have some training before returning to civil life. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find that a feasible scheme. To me this whole question is less a military one than a question of human interest. We here are employers of labour of these men, and it is our duty as employers to take care that their life is made as comfortable and as happy as it is possible for us to make it.
Mr. WALTER HUDSONAfter the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend I feel called upon at least to say something in vindication of Members below the Gangway. There are no Members of this House more in sympathy with the common soldier than we are. In our life and surroundings it could not be otherwise than that we should have the utmost sympathy with the common soldier. There is no association that has done more than our organisations for the soldier and reservist, and at the time of the South African war we carried benefits not only to the men, but to their wives and families, should they lose their lives. We did that not out of sympathy with the objects of the war, but we were in sympathy with men and
1688
women of our own class. I have asked questions with regard to the employment of discharged soldiers, not that I and my colleagues were out of sympathy with them, but because influences were at work to get these men situations at the expense of some of our own men. The worst feature of it is that the discharged soldiers are to take positions at a less wage, and it is of that we complain. We wish every facility to be offered for the discharged soldier, but not to undersell the ordinary civilian in his work. Let there be a fair field and we are satisfied, and we entirely repudiate the statement that we are not in sympathy with discharged soldiers.
Mr. J. D. REESI am very glad to hear what the hon. Member has just said that he would give a preference for a job to an old soldier. [An HON. MEMBER "Why preference?"] It seems to me that some feeling to that effect was expressed in the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle. The hon. Member for Gravesend said, with unnecessary modesty, and, I think, with some inaccuracy, that he had nothing practical to say about the private soldier. I think I have. As our protector general, as the pillar of our rule in India, without which it would dissolve like a dream, he has been the means of eliciting a well-deserved recognition in this House of the excellence of Indian administration. If you want to see an infantry regiment a thousand strong on parade you must go to India, or a cavalry regiment with horses you must go to India. If you want to see regimental institutions well conceived, well equipped, and well managed you must go to India. So my hon. Friend the Member for Eskdale said, and it was allowed by other speakers, and I must say that it is a gratifying thing to an old Indian pensioner to hear a tribute to Indian administration, which, if hon. Members only knew the facts, they would be willing to give in every case. During the debate I was very much interested to see how the ruling passion came out. In the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Eskdale this resolution took a teetotal turn, and with the Financial Secretary it became educational in character; but in the hands of both hon. Gentlemen I am glad to say there was a concensus on one subject, and that was as to these institutions in India, the excellence of which has been admitted fully in regard to temperance, and socially and morally.
I do not want to overstate the case, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eskdale, who proposed the Resolution—it is

1689
his day out—said practically the same thing. When he pleaded for a special temperance room in barracks I heartily agreed with him. I think, as there is a place for the sale of drink called a bar, that there should be a place not for drinking called a temperance room. I hope the Secretary of State for War will endeavour to provide such, though I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool that it is an easy matter to provide accommodation for all those purposes in all the barracks over the country, and that the expense does not matter. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman opposite is somewhat hard upon certain employers who have been guilty of any wrong towards their employees, but simply choose in the exercise of their discretion to give the preference to an ex-soldier in making those appointments in their own employment. I submit that was within their right, and, in exercising it, they not only have not been guilty of tyranny but that they exercised it wisely and in a patriotic manner. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheaply."] I speak with great respect to the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they will allow me to express mine. I would say, as one who has lived with regiments in India, I would echo all that has been said of the immense progress in temperance, and in all respects of the British soldier in India. Thirty-five years ago things were different indeed.
The hon. Member for Stoke made a great point of the administration of our regiments, being what he called aristocratic and not democratic in character. I should like to assure him, both in general and particular, as regards those institutions, that the administration of regiments in India is neither aristocratic nor democratic, but efficient, and that efficiency is the one thing the authorities care for, and it is by no means the case that the management is conducted in the spirit
1690
which he ascribed to it. I repeat that it is most gratifying that, to-night at any rate, there has been none of that prejudice against the excellence of administration in India, and I hope and believe that the more hon. Members learn at first-hand of what it is like, the less ready will they be to think ill of it.
Question—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question"—put, and agreed to.
Main Question again proposed— "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
Mr. LUPTONthat the speakers from the Treasury Bench have occupied three hours of our time. I should like to refer to the inoculation of our troops who go abroad. I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman should still advocate this after its ghastly failure. In the case of South Africa, not only had they the effects of the voyage to overcome, but they were subjected to this horrid attack by the medical men, who weakened them, poisoned their blood, and then delivered them in South Africa to fall an easy prey to the enemy or to enteric when they reached Bloemfontein. Even if it were a prophylactic against enteric there would be no justification for inserting poison in the blood of our soldiers. There are hundreds of other ailments to which human beings are subject, and to try to prevent this one, not by sanitation, but by this degrading method, is not a step in advance, but a retrograde step, taking us back a hundred years.
The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put,— "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 54.

Division No.[22.]

AYES.

[11.0 p m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bell, Richard

Cleland, J. W.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

Clough. William

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bennett. E. N.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Alden, Percy

Boulton, A. C. F.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bowerman. C. W.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Branch. James

Crooks, William

Armitage, R.

Brigg, John

Crosfield, A. H.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Buchanan, Rt. Hon. Thomas R.

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N.)

Barlow. Percy (Bedford)

Buxton. Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Barnes. G. N.

Byles. William Pollard

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Erskine, David C.

Beale. W. P.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Esslemont, George Birnie

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. P.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

1691

Everett, R. Lacey

Lamont, Norman

Rowlands, J.

Falconer, J.

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Fenwick, Charles

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Findlay, Alexander

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lewis, John Herbert

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Fullerton, Hugh

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seddon. J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Seely, Colonel

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shackleton, David James

Gulland, John W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gurdon, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Brampton

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Micking, Major G.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hall, Frederick

Markham, Arthur Basil

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Massie, J.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Summerbell, T.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montgomery, H. G.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Myer, Horatio

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Tomkinson, James

Hedges, A. Paget

Norman, Sir Henry

Toulmin, George

Hemmerde, Edward George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Verney, F. W.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Vivian, Henry

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Waring, Walter

Hobart, Sir Robert

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Radford, G. H.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hodge, John

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Rees, J. D.

White, Sir Luke (York. E.R.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Wiles, Thomas

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilkie, Alexander

Jardine, Sir J.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull. W.)

Jenkins, J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robertson, J. M.(Tyneside)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Robinson, S.

Wilson, W. T. (Weathoughton)

Kekewich, Sir George

Robson, Sir William Snowden

Kelley, George D.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain M.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Joseph Pease and the Master of

King, Alfred John (Knutstord)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Elibank.

Lambert, George

Rose, Charles Day

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balcarres, Lord

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renton, Leslie

Baldwin, Stanley

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renwick, George

Baabury, Sir Frederick George

Helmsley, Viscount

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cave, George

Kilbride, Denis

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lupton, Arnold

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clark, George Smith

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Doughty, Sir George

Morpeth, Viscount

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Fletcher, J. S.

Oddy, John James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Forster. Henry William

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Younger, George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Peel, Hon. W. (Taunton)

Gordon, J.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Gretton, John

Reddy, M.

Lane-Fox and Mr. Rowland Hunt.

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Main question put accordingly, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
  CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
    (IN THE COMMITTEE.) ARMY ESTIMATES, 1909–10.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (8th March).

WAYS AND MEANS [3rd March.]
The House resumed.
[The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott) in the chair.]
Resolution reported:—"That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1909, the sum of £910,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Funds of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
Resolution read a second time.
Motion made and question proposed:—"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Sir FREDERICK BANBURYWill the Prime Minister state when the second reading of this Bill will be taken, and whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing it at a proper hour?
The PRIME MINISTERTo-morrow (5th March).
Sir FREDERICK BANBURYTo-morrow is Friday, a private Member's day. I do not wish to raise any question at this stage, but as I understand the only opportunity for discussing the second reading will be Friday, I think I must ask the House to go to a division on this question. Perhaps the right. hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position.
Mr. JAMES HOPEI must ask the Secretary to the Treasury to elucidate this matter a little further. I understand he said yesterday there is a very special necessity for this abnormal procedure. It seems extraordinary, on the face of it, that there should be two Consolidated Bills necessary in the month of March. I should like to ask him how the necessity arises? This is one of the points not easily apprehended by Members of the House who have not given special attention to it. The only man really able to deal with a matter of this kind is Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles, and in his absence I am afraid there is no one capable of treating the subject so ably as he. I understood the Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday it was very seldom that a vote was run out so low as on this occasion. I want to know why it is run out so late, and why the Government did not anticipate this call. That is the first question. The second question I want to ask him is why it was he said the Motion was brought on in the interest of strict financial purity? I should presume it is a matter of necessity instead of strict financial purity. "Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice" says:—
Unless a grant of supply is appropriated by Statute to the Service to which it is destined, the Treasury, unless otherwise authorised, is not capable of making use of the sum or grant from the Consolidated Fund.
Therefore, I presume, it is really not possible for the hon. Gentleman to have got the money, and therefore his appeal to the high standards of financial purity is really conforming to the strict requirement of the law. I find also that—
1694
On the advice of Mr. Pitt in 1784, and of Lord Grey in 831, the Commons resolved that the persons who acted on Supply Grants unsanctioned by an Appropriation Act, would be guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour.
The hon. Gentleman narrowly escaped the offence of a high crime and misdemeanour and impeachment. I just want to say that I confess to an error. I suggested that this sum might have been met by devoting excesses under other heads to this amount, and I had forgotten for a moment that that procedure is only applicable in the case of Civil Service Estimates to the sub-heads and not to the votes. I ask the hon. Gentleman how he could have got money if it had not been for this procedure; why the necessity for this particular procedure has arisen at all; and whether the sums available for payment of old age pensions are already depleted or will be depleted by the end of next week when the Bill will pass?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)I do not think the House will expect me to enter into the explanation which I thought I had tendered rather fully to the House yesterday of the course which I hoped would be regarded as meeting a more rigid standard of financial purity than has sometimes been followed. If we had followed the example of hon. Gentlemen opposite between 1901 and 1905, I do not think we should have presented this resolution or this Bill to the House, but I thought, acting on the instructions of the Prime Minister, that it was better to revert to the higher and better standard which in the earlier days of their administration the right hon. Gentlemen opposite had followed, and to avoid any formal breaking of the financial rules which used formerly to govern proceedings in this House. It would have been perfectly possible, I am not sure whether it would not have been perfectly proper, following the example set in 1901, not to have presented this Bill at all, but I was advised that it would be a return to the older and purer standard of financial morality, and therefore I anticipate by some sixteen days the ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill. It is not possible to protract the debate except upon the very small point of the standard of financial morality and purity, but I do hope the House will give some encouragement to a return to what I believe are the better ways I have inaugurated and allow the proceedings to now terminate. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member opposite, there really is nothing in it. We have the money

1695
to go on with, but that money will be exhausted, I will not say properly exhausted, but there will be some departure from the strictest code of financial morality in this matter. If hon. Members do not wish to proceed in that path I have no desire to press it. We have funds at our disposal.
Mr. H. W. FORSTERI am not going to argue the question of whether the hon. Gentlemen is following a stricter path of financial morality than his predecessor, but what I want to ask is why proceed with the second reading of the Bill tomorrow? Why get the second reading of the Bill on Friday and sit late to get it? It will not give you your money any earlier than if you get the second reading of your Bill some day next week. I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes to press the second reading of the Bill to-morrow, and I should like to have some explanation.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASEPerhaps I may be allowed to say that on Monday we hope to take Votes A and I on the Army, and it might take us some short time after 11 o'clock. We think it undesirable that we should have the second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill and this £910,000 on Monday, and if anyone really desired to say anything they could say it after five o'clock to-morrow. We cannot expect a prolonged discussion to-morrow on this Consolidated Fund Bill. The House has already discussed it for a day and a half and, I believe, come to a decision.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI do not think we should allow this interesting and unique occasion to pass without congratulating the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, especially the Prime Minister, who has given him such excellent advice, in consequence of which he has taken this highly constitutional course. The object of course is to give this House in its different stages an opportunity of, in a constitutional manner, dealing with the question of this extra sum of money included in this Consolidated Fund Bill.
1696
The object of course is to allow full and complete discussion. The Government are not going to do what the late Government did, namely, deal with this money without giving the House adequate time to discuss it and go into details. How do they give that adequate time? By bringing it on in its different stages after 11 o'clock at night, and by forcing the second reading through on Friday after 5 o'clock. I think that is a way of carrying out these principles of financial purity which cannot but commend themselves to the great majority of Nonconformist consciences which so ably support the Government. I congratulate the Government upon the very effective and excellent way in which they have given us the opportunity of discussing matters in this Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. RENWICKI cannot allow the statement of the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury to go unchallenged. He said we have had ample opportunity of discussing the items in the Vote. I distinctly stated last night that I wished for an opportunity to say something in regard to the appropriation in aid of £4,000 upon the Customs Vote. I still wish for that opportunity.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat has nothing whatever to do with it. I must say, although I have allowed very natural and proper questions to be put as to the further stages of the Bill, the question of when the further stages of the Bill are to be taken has strictly nothing to do with the passing of this resolution as to whether it is expedient to authorise the output of this particular sum of money for the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. JAMES HOPEI thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member has no right to speak again except by the leave of the House.
Motion made, and question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 44.

Division No. 23.]

AYES.

[11.25 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Beale, W. P.

Byles, William Pollard

Alden, Percy

Beaumont. Hon. Hubert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Allen. A. Acland (Christchurch)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Armitage, R.

Bennett, E. N.

Cleland, J. W.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Boulton, A. C. F.

Clough, William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bowerman, C. W.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brigg, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Barnes, G. N.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Corbett. C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Buckmaster, Stanley 0.

Crooks, William

1697

Crosfield, A. H.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jardine, Sir J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Robinson, S.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Kelley, George D.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kilbride, Denis

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dillon, John

Kincaid-Smith, Captain M.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rose, Charles Day

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lambert, George

Rowlands, J.

Erskine, David C.

Lamont, Norman

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Evans. Sir Samuel T.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Everett, R. Lacey

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Falconer, J.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Seddon, J.

Fenwick, Charles

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seely, Colonel

Findlay, Alexander

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shipman. Dr. John G.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lupton, Arnold

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Gulland, John W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Gurdon, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Brampton

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Summerbell, T.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Hall, Frederick

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Harcourt Robert V. (Montrose)

Massie, J.

Tomkinson, James

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Toulmin, George

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Montgomery, H. G.

Waring, Walter

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Myer, Horatio

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hayden, John Patrick

Norman, Sir Henry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Hazleton, Richard

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wiles, Thomas

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wilkie, Alexander

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Radford. G. H.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Reddy, M.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rees, J. D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Hogan, Michael

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Joseph Pease and the Master of

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Elibank.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Renton, Leslie

Baldwin, Stanley

Hamilton. Marquess of

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cave, George

Helmsley, Viscount

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hills, J. W.

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clark, George Smith

Hunt, Rowland

Valentia, Viscount

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Doughty, Sir George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Oddy, John James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Gordon, J.

Peel. Hon. W. R. W.

Frederick Banbury and Mr. Ren-

Gretton, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

wick

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hob-house.
Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill:—
"To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine," presented accordingly, and read the first time. To be read a second time to-morrow, 5th March.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER. adjourned the House without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Granite Quarries Closed.
  Mr. FELL
  asked if any of the 420 quarries in the United Kingdom which have been closed since 1905 were granite quarries; and, if so, where are they situate?

  Mr. GLADSTONE:
  This information is not immediately available, but I will see what particulars can be obtained, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Diet of a Hindu Prisoner.
  Mr. O'GRADY
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether

  1699
  he is aware that a Hindu student named Basudeva Bhattacharyya, refusing to give an assurance to keep the peace, arising out of the Lee-Warner assault case, was sent to Pentonville Gaol; and that this student, being a Brahmin, could not partake of the ordinary prison diet and asking for Hindu diet was refused; if so, will steps be taken in cases of the kind that arrangements be made to supply the necessary diet?

  Mr. GLADSTONE:
  The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. It is not the case that the prisoner asked for Hindu diet and was refused. As soon as the prison authorities were aware that the prisoner was a Hindu inquiry was made with a view to ascertaining whether the ordinary prison diet was incompatible with the prisoner's religious tenets. He stated that he could not eat meat, and arrangements were at once made for him to be supplied with a diet consisting of rice, potatoes and bread. The prisoner stated that he was satisfied with this diet, and that he had no complaints to make with regard to his food. All possible care was taken by the prison authorities to prevent the prisoner being required to take any food which was incompatible with his religious tenets, and the like care will be taken if any similar case should occur in the future.

  Infantry Lieutenants.
  Sir FRANCIS CHANNING
  asked what steps are being taken to make good the deficiencies in lieutenants and second lieutenants in the infantry forces in the Special Reserve?

  Mr. HALDANE:
  I hope to deal with this subject during the debate on Army Estimates.

  Troops in Crete.
  Mr. HOLT
  asked the number and composition of the troops now in Crete?

  Mr. HALDANE:
  It is not customary to publish the existing strengths of garrisons abroad.

  Soldiers' Discharge Certificates.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH
  asked whether there would be any objection when a soldier is discharged as medically unfit to state in his certificate of discharge the nature of the unfitness, so that a soldier discharged because of dental caries, or some other comparatively trifling cause, might not be exposed to the difficulty occasioned by the present form of certificate, which makes employers unwilling to em-
  1700
  ploy a man rejected from the public service on such a general ground as medically unfit?

  Mr. HALDANE:
  While in cases of discharge for medical unfitness for comparatively trifling causes a description of the cause might assist a man in obtaining employment, it is certain that in many cases especially in those when the man subsequently recovers, or when the cause of the discharge is due to certain diseases such a description would seriously handicap him. Most employers are well aware that the medical unfitness for which a soldier was discharged is unfitness for active service as a soldier. The present arrangement was devised in the best interests of the men, and I do not propose to alter it.

  Prosecution of Mr. Keane (Constable O'Shea).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN
  asked Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, whether it has been brought to his notice that Constable O'Shea, of Ballingary, one of the principal witnesses for the Crown in the prosecution of Mr. Keane, editor of the Kilkenny People, on 23rd February, swore that he had read in a copy of this paper, for the publication of which Mr. Keane was under prosecution, certain paragraphs which it was found by the court, and admitted by the prosecuting counsel for the Crown, were not in the paper at all; and whether, seeing that under these circumstances the court acquitted Mr. Keane, he intends to prosecute Constable O'Shea for perjury?

  Mr. CHERRY:
  I have made enquiries as to the matter referred to in the question, and I am informed that Constable O'Shea was called as a witness by the Crown merely to prove the purchase of a copy of the newspaper alleged to have been published by the defendant. The newspaper was put in evidence, and was, of course, primary evidence of what was contained in it. The constable was then cross-examined by Mr. Keane as to the contents of the newspaper, the latter reading out passages and asking the constable if he had read same, to which the constable replied in the affirmative. Mr. Keane then read out a sentence closely resembling a passage in the newspaper, but different in effect, and by this trick the constable was induced to say that he had read the incorrect passage. Having investigated the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the constable honestly believed that his answer was correct at the time he gave it, and for this reason, as well as be-

  1701
  cause the answer was not material to the issue being tried, an indictment for perjury would not lie. I have no intention of instituting any prosecution.

  Lancashire School Endowments.
  Mr. HADDOCK
  asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state when the Board propose to deal with the school endowments within the administrative county of Lancaster as to which schemes have been submitted or with regard to which the decision of the Board has been asked, seeing that injustice is being done to ratepayers in many townships owing to the income from numerous endowments having been locked up since 1903?

  Mr. RUNCIMAN:
  The Board have been under the necessity of postponing proceedings with respect to a considerable number of endowments applicable or applied to Elementary Education, partly in view of the recent Bills with respect to Elementary Education, and partly in view of the pressure of more immediately urgent work in the Legal Department of their Office. The Board are now proceeding with these eases with as little delay as possible.

  Mr. HADDOCK
  asked the President of the Board of Education if he will explain why the scheme applied for by the trustees of the Brow Edge Endowed School, Upper Holker, Lancashire, and which was approved by the Lancashire Education Committee some years ago, is not proceeded with; and whether the Board of Education is aware that the income of the endowment has been lying idle since the appointed day under the Education Act of 1902, entirely against the wishes of the trustees or of the ratepayers of Upper Holker?

  Mr. RUNCIMAN:
  This scheme was suspended, with others, in view of the recent Bills relating to Elementary Education. The matter is now being proceeded with, and the Draft Scheme was yesterday communicated by the Board to the Trustees and the Local Education Authority.

  Vaccination (Essex Education Committee).
  Mr. LUPTON
  asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Essex Education Committee has sent out circulars to the parents of school children asking them to fill up particulars as to ailments that the child may have suffered from, and also asking if the child has been vaccinated, and, if so, how many marks there are; and if he will instruct the Essex Education Committee to modify their form so as to exclude all reference to vaccination?
  1702
  Mr. RUNCIMAN:
  I understand that circulars of this character have been issued. The Board have warned the Essex Local Authority, in accordance with their usual practice, in all cases in which they have any reason to suppose that enquiries as to vaccination are being made by the Authority in connection with medical inspection, that care must be taken to avoid prejudicing the work of medical inspection in the minds of parents who have a conscientious objection to vaccination. It is also the Board's practice to state clearly that such enquiries must not be made the basis of action under the Vaccination Acts. I am glad to say that a reply received from the Local Authority on the 18th February was quite satisfactory. They fully appreciate the necessity of considering the susceptibilities of parents, and they inform me that all information recorded is regarded as confidential and is not used for the purpose of enforcing vaccination.

  Brewers' Licence Duty.
  Mr. WARDLE
  asked what was the total profits made last year by the brewing firm of Bass and Company; and the total licence duty paid by that firm in the same period?

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE:
  I am precluded by law and long-established practice from giving the information asked for by the hon. Member in either part of this question.

  Discount on Income Tax Prepayments.
  Mr. YOUNGER
  asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to Section 10 of the Act of 52 and 53 Vic., c. 42, allowing a discount at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum on prepayments of Income Tax, instead of 5 per cent., as allowed by the Act of 5 and 6 Vic., c. 35; and whether he will say what, if any, dubiety exists in the interpretation of that provision?

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE:
  Section 10 of the Act 52 and 53 Vic., c. 42, provides that "the allowance to be made under Section 141 of the Act of the Session held in the 5th and 6th years of Her Majesty's reign, Chap. 35, shall be at the rate of £2 10s. per cent. per annum in lieu of the rate of £4 per cent. per annum." There does not seem to be any room for doubt as to the interpretation of this provision.

  Gratuities to Pension Officers.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON
  asked on what basis the distribution of gratuities to pension officers will be made; and if the

  1703
  services of those who have had the most arduous duties to fulfil will be suitably recognised?

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE:
  The gratuities granted to pension officers will be distributed on the basis of the amount of work which has fallen to the share of each officer, so that those who have had the most arduous duties to perform will receive suitable recognition.

  Mails to East Africa.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON
  asked what arrangements have been made recently with reference to the British Mail Service to Kilirdini, East Africa; and if the conveyance of passengers and freight has been taken into consideration?

  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON:
  I am in negotiation with the British India Steam Navigation Company for improvements in the British Mail Service between Aden, Kilindini (the harbour of Mombasa) and Zanzibar. A new time-table has been settled under which the service will be once in four weeks as at present, but the round course of post from London to Mombasa and Zanzibar and back will be reduced by a week. Provision is being made for the conveyance of Government passengers and of a certain amount of Government stores. It would be contrary to practice to include in a mail contract provision for the conveyance of ordinary passengers and freight.

  Communication with Ronaldshay.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON
  asked the Postmaster-General if he can now state the result of his inquiries with reference to telegrahphic communication to North Ronaldshay?

  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON:
  As I have already informed my hon. Friend's solicitor in Kirkwall, a cable across Ronaldshay Firth to North Ronaldshay would be in a strong tideway and over a rocky bottom; and the expense of maintaining it would be prohibitive. A wireless installation might be practicable; and experiments are now being made to ascertain the cost.

  Floating Docks.
  Mr. OWEN PHILIPPS
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has now given the question of the possible advantages of floating docks over graving docks his consideration; and if he can now state the approximate cost of a floating dock large enough to take vessels of the "Dreadnought" class?
  1704
  Mr. M'KENNA:
  The matter is still under consideration. No approximate cost of a floating dock to take a "Dread-nought" can yet be given.

  Royal Dockyards (Overtime).
  Mr. OWEN PHILIPPS
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to give regular employment to the greatest possible number of workmen, he will give instructions that wherever possible overtime in the Royal dockyards should be discontinued?

  Mr. M'KENNA:
  No continued overtime or any overtime which can be avoided by reasonable anticipation of the exigencies of the work is permitted. When it cannot be so avoided, the personal sanction of the First Lord has to be obtained in each instance.

  Land Clubs.
  Mr. BRODIE
  asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what steps have been taken by the Surrey County Council to deal with the applications of the members of the Beddington Land Club for Small Holdings?

  Sir. E. STRACHEY:
  The Board understand from the Clerk of the County Council that no applications for land had been received up to the 18th ult., from members, of the Beddington Land Club. If my hon. Friend will supply me with further particulars inquiry will be made.

  Mr. BRODIE
  asked what is the present position of the applications of the members of the land club at Westerham, in Kent, for small holdings, in connection with which he made inquiries in November last?

  Sir E. STRACHEY: We are informed that the County Council are awaiting information from the club as to its financial position, and that until this is received the Council are not in a position to approve the application.

  Mr. BRODIE
  asked the hon. Member to explain why no inquiry of any sort has been held at Godstone by the Surrey County Council in connection with the applications of the members of the Godstone and South Godstone Land Clubs for small holdings; and whether the applicants at Godstone and South Godstone were asked to interview the small holdings sub-committee of the Surrey County Council at Oxted, which is three or four miles from their homes, at hours at which they would not, in the ordinary course of events, have-ceased work for the day?
  1705
  Sir E. STRACHEY:
  No application appears to have been received by the County Council from the land clubs at Godstone and South Godstone, but eight applications have been sent in from those parishes. These applicants were invited to attend a local inquiry held in the evening at Oxted between 6.30 and 9.30. The Board see no reason for taking exception to the arrangements made by the Council.

  Mr. BRODIE
  asked whether the Board of Agriculture can say how many applicants for small holdings in England and Wales have actually obtained land up to 31st December last?

  Sir E. STRACHEY: This information is not yet available, but it is being obtained and will be published in the annual report which is now in course of preparation.

  Mr. BRODIE
  asked whether the Board, if they have not already done so, will call the attention of county councils, and particularly that of the Kent County Council, to the fact that the rent asked of small holders should be fixed with due regard to the rateable value of the land leased and to the rent previously paid for it?

  Sir E. STRACHEY:
  The rent charged for small holdings must be based on the rent or price paid for the land by the County Council, and must be "such reasonable amount as will, in their opinion, guard them against loss." The considerations to which my hon. Friend refers are required by the Act to be taken into account by a valuer when fixing the rent to be paid by a council for land compulsorily hired.

  Mr. BRODIE
  asked why the Hertfordshire County Council have taken no steps to supply land to Thomas Willson and the other members of the Watford Land Club?

  Sir E. STRACHEY:
  The County Council appear to have used every endeavour to obtain land, but they have not yet been successful owing to the high price of land near Watford. They are considering if land can be obtained by compulsory hiring.

  Mr. BRODIE
  asked what steps have been taken to provide land for the applicants for small holdings at Denmead, in Hampshire?

  Sir E. STRACHEY:
  We are informed by the Clerk of the County Council that three applications were made for small
  1706
  holdings at Denmead, but the applicants did not attend the local inquiry to which they were invited, and only one of them forwarded the information asked for by the Council. This application is still under consideration, together with five others which have recently been received. The Council are taking steps to acquire and supply the land required.

  Mr. BRODIE
  asked whether the Board will obtain from the county councils of Kent and Surrey a list of the members of the sub-committees appointed to interview applicants for small holdings, stating the occupation or profession of each member, and giving, in cases where the members are landholders, the extent and situation of their holdings?

  Sir E. STRACHEY:
  Perhaps I may suggest that my hon. Friend should himself apply to the county councils for the information he desires. They will no doubt be happy to supply him with it.

  Territorial Force and Rifle Clubs (Government Ammunition).
  Mr. COURTHOPE
  asked the Secretary of State for War at what price per thousand rounds Government .303 ammunition can now be purchased by units of the Territorial Force and rifle clubs?

  Mr. HALDANE:
  Under the present regulations the Territorial Force can purchase Government .303 ammunition at a reduced rate of ¤4 per 1,000 up to 10 rounds for each member. Any further number of rounds required can be purchased at £4 9s. per 1,000 without limit as to quantity. Rifle clubs can also purchase at this latter rate. The question, however, of supply of ammunition to the Territorial Force and rifle clubs at a reduced rate is now under consideration.

  Mr. COURTHOPE
  asked whether the National Rifle Association has made arrangements for the supply to units of the Territorial Force and rifle clubs of .303 ammunition, loaded to Government specification, at £3 10s. per 1,000 rounds, with a refund of 10s. per 1,000 empty cases returned; and whether he will authorise the use of this ammunition in Government rifles, in order that the Territorial Force may obtain the same advantages as rifle clubs from the cheap supply?

  Mr. HALDANE:
  As regards the first part of the question information to this effect has been given to the War Office by the National Rifle Association. As regards

  1707
  the last part of the question the use of ammunition other than the Government supply cannot be sanctioned in Government rifles.

  Army Boots.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDS
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the difference in price per pair of those contractors who were unsuccessful last year, but successful this, in their tenders for blucher boots for the Army; whether the right hon. Gentleman can give the names of the successful contractors for Army bluchers, the price accepted per pair, and the number of pairs ordered from each successful contractor this year; and how many pairs of boots have been ordered from Bristol, Finedon, Chesham, Raunds, Kettering, Ringstead, and Walgrave; and how many pairs have been obtained under 10s. 6d. per pair for hand-sewn?

  Mr. HALDANE:
  Such particulars cannot be furnished, as it is the present established practice of the War Department to treat the prices and distribution of specific orders as strictly confidential.

  Territorial Forces (Training in New Forest).
  Sir ROBERT HOBART
  asked the Secretary of State for War, whether it is with his authority that a public announcement has been made that three brigades of the Territorial Forces of the Southern Command will be trained during August in the New Forest; whether he is aware that the Court of Verderers of the New Forest has not received six months' notice of the proposed manœuvres, as required by The Military Manœuvres Act, 1897; and what arrangements he proposed to make for the protection of the rights of the commoners over the New Forest?

  Mr. HALDANE:
  I am making enquiries and will communicate their result to my hon. Friend. The announcement was not made with my authority.

  Colonial Office and Australasian Colonies.
  Mr. FELL
  asked the President of the Board of Trade if two representatives have been sent to visit the self-governing Colonies on behalf of the Government; what is the nature of their mission and instructions; and will they be authorised to confer with the Colonial Governments on the question of preferential trade within the Empire?

  Colonel SEELY:
  Sir Charles Lucas, the head of the Dominions Division of the
  1708
  Colonial Office, accompanied by Mr. Pearson, has gone, by the Secretary of State's instructions, on a visit to Australia and New Zealand, in accordance with the suggestion made at the Colonial Conference that opportunities should be created by periodical visits for members of the permanent staff of the Colonial Office to acquire personal knowledge of the circumstances and conditions of those colonies with whose business they have to deal. The main object of the visit is, therefore, to bring the Colonial Office more in touch with Australasian feeling. Sir Charles Lucas will, no doubt, discuss subjects which are of special interest to Australian statesmen. He is well aware of the views of His Majesty's Government as to the application of a system of Colonial Preference to the Mother Country.

  Trinidad.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL
  asked whether a vagrant law for Trinidad is under consideration which will compel anyone unemployed, however temporarily, to make a choice between immediate imprisonment and acceptance at any price of any work, however unsuited to the person's training and habits, any employer may offer?

  Colonel SEELY:
  The Secretary of State is not aware that such a law is under consideration.

  Mr. SUMMERBELL
  asked whether the acting Governor of Trinidad directed the December salaries to be paid on the 23rd of the month, so as to enable employees to have something for the Christmas festivities; that the General Manager of Railways paid the chief clerk and himself only on that day, delaying the paying of the porters, telegraphists, collectors, and the navvies till the 31st of that month; and, if so, will he see that the acting Governor's instructions are carried out in future?

  Colonel SEELY:
  No information has been received concerning the points raised by my hon. Friend. The question, however, will be referred to the officer administering the Government of Trinidad for his report.

  Belmont and Woodbrook, Port of Spain.
  Mr. SUMMER BELL
  asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he is aware that various improvements are being carried out in Belmont and Woodbrook, Port of Spain, and are being paid for by agreement, one-third by the landlord, one-third by the town, and one-third by the Government; that the landlord's share, in every case, is being paid by the tenant, the land-

  1709
  lord thus actually contributing nothing; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government, in view of this, to give to the tenants compulsory rights of purchase, on the basis of the present rental?

  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State is aware that certain improvements to the streets and drainage are being carried out in Belmont and Woodbrook, Port of Spain; the manner of payment is, however, not exactly in accordance with the facts stated in my hon. Friend's question. In Belmont the ratepayers, who are not necessarily the tenants, are responsible for the repayment of a quarter of the sum of £29,000 raised for the purpose of these improvements. This amount (£7,250) is repayable by an annual rate not exceeding £2 per centum on the rateable value of houses and lands. The remaining three-quarters (£22,250) is repayable one-quarter by the Port of Spain Town Board and the rest by the Government. In Woodbrook the improvements which, when completed, will cost £15,000, are being paid for one-quarter (£3,750) by the ground-owners, Messrs. Siegert and Sons, one-quarter by the Town Board of Port of Spain, and the remainder by the Government. In the case of Belmont the action taken is the result of the ratification by the Legislative Council of the recommendations of a special committee, which were embodied in Ordinance 20 of 1907 and Ordinance 19 of 1908. In the case of Woodbrook, the action taken is the result of the recommendations of the late Governor of Trinidad, adopted by the Legislative Council, and embodied in Ordinance 19 of 1908. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, there is no intention on the part of the Trinidad Government to give in either case to the tenants compulsory rights of purchase on the basis of the present rental.

  Great Western Railway (Steamboats) Bill.
  Mr. B. S. STRAUS
  asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to oppose the progress of the Great Western Railway (Steamboats) Bill until after the Accounts Committee has reported to the House?

  Mr. CHURCHILL:
  I understand that the Committee to which my hon. Friend refers is the Departmental Committee on Railway Accounts appointed by the Board of Trade, but I do not see how the report of that Committee when received can bear so directly on the proposals of the Bill in question as to justify me in taking the action suggested.

  Customs Inquiry.
  Mr. SNOWDEN
  asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he proposes to extend the scope of the promised committee of inquiry into the Customs to include an inquiry into the long-standing question of salaries in the Excise, seeing that there is now to be a partial amalgamation of the two services?

  Mr. HOBHOUSE:
  I cannot make any statement at present as to the exact scope of the inquiry. Its primary object is to effect the amalgamation of the two services with the least possible injury to either individuals or classes.

  European Garrisons (South Africa, Egypt India).
  Dr. V. H. RUTHERFORD
  asked the Secretary of State for War what was the strength of the garrisons in South Africa, Egypt, and India (European troops) respectively in 1895, 1898, 1905, and 1908; and what was the total strength and total cost of the Army, irrespective of India, at the same periods?

  Mr. HALDANE,
  in reply, supplied the following statement:—

  Strength of all ranks on 1st April (European troops only):—

  1895.

  1898.

  1905.

  1908.

  South Africa 3,253

  8,550

  21,486

  16,126

  Egypt 5,233

  8,733

  3,979

  5,461

  India 74,884

  73,442

  78,465

  74,564

  Total strength and estimated cost of the Army (exclusive of India and Auxiliary Forces):—

  Strength 1st April:—

  All Ranks.

  Cost.

  1895

  146,531

  £15,047,700

  1898

  150,666

  16,847,000

  1905

  204,018

  25,548,800

  1908

  174,554

  22,662,000

  Royal Gardens, Kew.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL
  asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculure, whether he is aware that a vacancy caused at the Royal Gardens, Kew, by the promotion of the arboretum foreman is being filled by an outsider notwithstanding that there are several sub-foremen under notice of dismissal owing to the recently imposed time-limit; and whether, in view of the fact that some

  1711
  time ago it was stated by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, that promotion to higher positions was within the reach of the men employed, he will cause this grievance of the sub-foremen mentioned to be immediately remedied?

  Sir E. STRACHEY:
  The vacancy to which my hon. Friend refers has been filled by the re-engagement of a gardener who has had previous service at Kew and rose to the rank of sub-foreman. The work of the position in question is of a special character, and none of the sub-foremen at present in employment possessed sufficiently long experience of it to justify his selection.

  Epizootic Abortion (Newmarket).
  Colonel WALKER
  asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will institute inquiries regarding the cases of epizootic abortion which are reported to have occurred at a stud at or near Newmarket and whether, if the report be verified, he will give instructions to have the stud isolated so as to prevent the spread of this most infectious disease to other mares?

  Sir E. STRACHEY:
  Epizootic abortion is not a scheduled disease under the Diseases of Animals Acts, but if the hon. and gallant Member will supply us with more definite information as to the date of the outbreak and the premises on which it occurred we will make inquiry into the matter and see if we can with advantage take any action.

  Illegitimate Children in Workhouses (England and Wales).
  Mr. ARNOLD HERBERT
  asked what was the average number during the last five years of illegitimate children in workhouses in England and Wales being maintained at the expense of the rates, and what was the average expenditure for the same period by Poor Law Guardians upon the maintenance of illegitimate children and their mothers and incidental to the birth of illegitimate children?

  Mr. BURNS:
  The average number on the 1st of January in the five years, 1904–1908 of illegitimate children relieved with their mothers at the expense of the rates in England and Wales was 6,360, of whom the large majority received relief in workhouses. I am unable to give the amount of the expenditure of Boards of Guardians on the purposes referred to in the latter part of the question.

  Outdoor Relief (Mrs. Russell, Worcester).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDS
  asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he was aware that an old lady, a Mrs. Russell, aged 94, was receiving 2s. 6d. per week outdoor, and from the Worcester guardians, and owing to her removal to Sparkbrook, near Birmingham, to her daughter's house, and after notifying the Worcester guardians, has been deprived of her outdoor relief for 10 weeks before it was again given to her; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter towards restoring this loss sustained?

  Mr. BURNS:
  My attention has not been drawn to the case referred to. I can only point out that if Mrs. Russell, after removing to Sparkbrook, required relief, she should at once have applied for it to the guardians of the union in which this place is situate. There would be no legal authority to make any payment to her in respect of a period during which no relief had been awarded her.

  Registrar-General's Report (Deaths in Public Institutions).
  Mr. WALTER ROCH
  asked the President of the Local Government Board if he can give the number, or estimated number, of persons under the age of 20 who died in a public institution and are comprised in the Registrar-General's Report for 1907?

  Mr. BURNS:
  I have communicated with the Registrar-General, who informs me that the particulars as to these cases have not been tabulated, and that he is not in a position to give an estimate of the number.

  Milk Bill.
  Mr. LANE-FOX
  asked the President of the Local Government Board when he hopes to introduce the promised Bill dealing with the milk supply?

  Mr. BURNS:
  I hope to introduce it early in the Session, but I cannot at present fix a date.

  Natu Brothers (Arrest on Suspicion).
  Mr. WEIR
  asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the Natu brothers, of Poona, were arrested in July, 1897, on suspicion of being concerned in a murder case, and kept in prison for a period of two years without being brought to trial, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will extend to his Majesty's subjects in India the right to be brought

  1713
  to trial within a reasonable period after arrest?

  Mr. BUCHANAN:
  The Natu brothers were dealt with under a Bombay Regulation corresponding to the Bengal Regulation III. of 1818. It is not intended to interfere with the powers conferred by these Regulations or to vary their provisions.

  Naval Repairs.
  Mr. BELLAIRS
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the large

  Ship.

  Yard.

  When taken in hand.

  When completed.

  Anticipated date of completion.

  Berwick

  Portsmouth

  20th August, 1908

  —

  31st March, 1909.

  Blake

  Chatham

  30th July, 1907

  20th June, 1908

  —

  Diadem

  Chatham

  23rd December, 1907

  —

  31st March, 1909.

  Doris

  Devonport

  8th December, 1908

  —

  31st March, 1909.

  Formidable

  Chatham

  31st August, 1908

  —

  14th April, 1909.

  Forte

  Portsmouth

  9th May, 1908

  14th August, 1908

  —

  Hogue

  Devonport

  Not yet taken in hand.

  —

  Implacable

  Chatham

  22nd June, 1908

  30th January, 1909

  —

  London

  —

  Not yet taken in hand.

  —

  Medea

  Haulbowline

  4th May, 1908

  —

  Dependent on completion of full power steam trial to be made shortly.

  Niobe

  Chatham

  14th July, 1908

  —

  31st March, 1909.

  Pelorus

  —

  Not yet taken in hand.

  —

  Prince George

  —

  Not yet taken in hand.

  —

  St. George

  Chatham

  22nd February, 1909

  —

  Not settled.

  Terrible

  Portsmouth

  23rd April, 1908

  —

  31st March, 1909.

  Venerable

  Chatham

  18th February, 1909.

  —

  Not settled.

  Vulcan

  Chatham

  23rd May, 1907

  31st December, 1908.

  —

  Battleships (Germany, America, Japan).
  Mr. PARTINGTON
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state when the first battleship of the "Dreadnought" type was laid down in Germany, America, and Japan?

  Mr. M'KENNA:
  The following are the official dates of laying down:—

  Germany—August, 1907.

  United States of America—December, 1906.

  Japan—January, 1909.

  Battleships ("Dreadnought" Type).
  Mr. PARTINGTON
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it was decided to build battleships of the "Dreadnought" type; and on what date the "Dreadnought" wad laid down?

  Mr. M'KENNA:
  It was decided to build battleships of the "Dreadnought" type on 18th May, 1905. The "Dreadnought" was laid down on the 2nd October, 1905.
  1714
  repairs or refits for which money was voted in 1908–9, viz., "Berwick," "Blake," "Diadem," "Doris," "Formidable," "Forte," "Hogue," "Implacable," "London," "Medea," "Niobe," "Pelorus," "Prince George," "St. George," "Terrible," "Venerable," and "Vulcan," whether he can state in each case when the work was commenced, when it was completed, or the anticipated date of completion?

  Mr. McKENNA
  presented the following statement:—

  Active Service (Admirals).
  Mr. ASHLEY
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is in accordance with the practice of the Admiralty to terminate the active service of an admiral in a high command before the expiry of the normal period for which he has been appointed subject to His Majesty's pleasure?

  Mr. M'KENNA:
  The reply to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

  Commander-in-Chief (Channel Squadron).
  Mr. ASHLEY
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can offer any explanation of the recent official decision of the Board of Admiralty, as publicly announced in connection with the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Squadron?

  Mr. M'KENNA:
  I do not understand on what point the hon. Member desires an explanation.

  Navy Estimates.
  Mr. ARKWRIGHT
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say on what

  1715
  date the Naval Estimates will be in the hands of hon. Members?

  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON
  asked a similar question.

  Mr. M'KENNA:
  I hope that the Navy Estimates will be in the hands of honourable Members by Saturday morning, the 13th March.

  German Armoured Cruiser ("Blucher").
  Mr. BELLAIRS
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the German armoured cruiser "Blucher" of the 1906 programme is armed with a heavier armament than the 8.2-inch guns mentioned in the Return of Fleets (Great Britain and Foreign Countries)?

  Mr. M'KENNA:
  There is no official information that the "Blucher" is armed with other than 8.2-inch guns.

  Vatersay Farm (Purchase).
  Mr. COCHRANE
  asked the Lord Advocate whether he can give any information as to the settlement of the land difficulty in Vatersay?

  The LORD ADVOCATE:
  After considerable further negotiation, which showed that a satisfactory settlement could not be reached otherwise, the Government made an offer to purchase the farm of Vatersay, which has been accepted by the proprietor. The price was £6,260; with details which must be added the sum is £6,371 9s. 5d. This is exclusive of compensation to the tenant for acclimatised value of sheep stock and renunciation of lease, which matters have been referred to arbitration.

  Deaf-and-Dumb and Blind Training (Ireland).
  Mr. FIELD
  asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that all the elected bodies in Ireland are now calling upon the Government to legislate upon the Report of the Royal Commission of 1889, and which unanimously reported that the question of the education and training of the deaf-and-dumb and blind should be immediately legislated upon; and whether he can explain the reason for delay in legislation after the sympathetic reception he gave the blind on the subject?

  Mr. BIRRELL:
  I have received resolutions on the subject from several local bodies in Ireland. As regards the remainder of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Belfast on 26th October last.

  National Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY
  asked if the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland could give any approximate estimate of the respective costs of heating and cleansing national schools in Ireland?

  Mr. BIRRELL:
  The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have no means of making an estimate of the respective costs of heating and cleaning national schools in Ireland.

  Limerick Quarter Sessions.
  Mr. LUNDON
  asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that at the late quarter sessions held in Limerick the County Court Judge, Mr. Law Smith, in dealing with the appeals in connection with the applications for cottages and plots under the Labourers Acts from the labourers of Tipperary No. 2 District Council, which is situated in the county of Limerick, decided against all, or nearly all, the applications; and will he say how many applications were rejected, and on what grounds the rejections took place?

  Mr. BIRRELL:
  The Local Government Board have not yet received copies of the orders made by the Count Court Judge in this case, but from a statement furnished by the Clerk of the Rural District Council they gather that the judge dealt with petitions relating to 24 cottages, of which 18 were disallowed by him. The Board are not informed of the grounds upon which County Court Judges base their decisions.

  Estates Commissioners (James Enright).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY
  asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners received an application for reinstatement from James Enright, of Enniscouch, Rathkeale, in the county of Limerick, evicted tenant; and, if so, what action do they propose to take in the matter?

  Mr. BIRRELL:
  The Estates Commissioners have received this application, and will consider it in the allotment of untenanted land to be acquired by them.

  Control of the Feeble Minded (Belfast).
  Mr. SLOAN
  asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the capital expenditure found necessary to provide accommodation for the insane in Belfast and for their maintenance, he will consider the desirability of giving effect to the recommendation No. 29 of the Royal Commission, 1908, on the care and control of the feeble minded?

  Mr. BIRRELL:
  The recommendations of this Royal Commission concern the United Kingdom generally, and will have to be dealt with as a whole in connection with

  1717
  the report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws. No pronouncement can be made with respect to individual recommendations involving unknown financial commitments.

  Agrarian Crimes (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALE
  asked the Solicitor-General for Ireland upon what authority he bases the statement that not one of the 576 agrarian crimes reported in 1908 would have been punishable under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, 1887, if that Act had been in force; whether the large number of crimes for which offenders were made amenable under the various provisions of the Act in former years were duly included in the records of crime, agrarian or non-agrarian; and whether he will ascertain from the constabulary authorities what are the agrarian crimes reported in 1908 which are not punishable under the Act of 1887 were it in force?

  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry):
  When speaking on Tuesday, February 23rd instant, with reference to the list of specially reported agrarian outrages in Ireland for the year 1908, I had in my mind the graver crimes of murder, firing at the person, firing into dwellings, incendiary fires, malicious injury to property, and maiming cattle, which had been the subject of so much discussion in the debate in connection with that list. I did not advert at the time, nor was my attention called to other cases, e.g., intimidation and riots, which no doubt would, where evidence was forthcoming, be cognisable under Section 2 of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, 1887. The cases of offenders made amenable under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act in former years were not included in the records of crime, whether agrarian or otherwise. These records did not deal with any cases summarily disposed of. Special returns of prosecutions under the Act were from time to time presented to Parliament, and the figures can be obtained in the Irish Criminal Statistics. The question of what agrarian crimes as reported in 1908 would be punishable under the Act of 1887 is one depending upon the interpretation of the Act itself. No case would be so punishable save offences falling under Section 2 of the Act. The Constabulary authorities could throw no further light on the matter.

  Sale of Estates.
  Dr. AMBROSE
  asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that sales to the extent of £25,190,839 have taken place in the Landed Estates
  1718
  Court from October, 1849, to August, 1859, without waiting for the title of the estate to be proved, he will, in the interests of tenants of uneconomic holdings and the public generally, see that the sale of estates at present in the Landed Estates Court is expedited in a similar manner?

  Mr. BIRRELL:
  The procedure for the sale of estate in the Land Judge's Court is not a matter over which I have any control, but I am informed that there is no statutory power to expedite sales in the manner suggested in the question.

  National Schools, Ireland (Junior Assistant Mistress).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY
  asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can ascertain how many junior assistant mistresses in national schools have been paid £4 each in accordance with the terms of the Supplemental Estimate of 27th July, 1908; in view of the fact that the name, junior assistant mistress, only came into existence on the 1st July, 1906, are junior mistresses who have given efficient service prior to that date as manual instructresses, work-mistresses, or assistants, eligible for this grant for the year ending 31st March, 1908; if so, how many such have been paid £4 each; if not; what is the amount of the unexpended balance of the £4,064 allotted for payment of the junior assistant mistresses for the year ended March, 1908; and what has been done or what is to be done with this balance?

  Mr. BIRRELL:
  The Commissioners of National Education inform me that 546 junior assistant mistresses were paid £4 each in accordance with the terms of the Supplementary Estimate of 27th July, 1908. In all of these cases the necessary qualifying efficient service was composed partly of service rendered as manual instructresses or as assistants. Work-mistresses are not entitled to any share of the grant and consequently service as work-mistresses in the case of 20 junior assistants was not recognised. There are certain exceptional cases of junior assistant mistresses still unpaid, and correspondence is proceeding in regard to them. Unexpended balances from Parliamentary Votes are returned to the Treasury.

  German Navy Estimates.
  Mr. BELLAIRS
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the first instalments in the German Navy Estimates for each of the battleships and armoured cruisers of the programmes of 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909; and what were the second and third instalments in each of the above years, for which the information is available.
  1719
  Mr. M'KENNA:
  The information required is given in the enclosed table ex-

  Name

  Programme Year.

  Instalment.

  1906.

  Instalment.

  1907.

  Instalment.

  1908.

  Instalment.

  1909.

  Battleships.—

  Nassau

  1906

  1

  273,972

  2

  601,762

  3

  499,020

  —

  —

  Westfalen

  1906

  1

  273,972

  2

  601,762

  3

  499,020

  —

  —

  Rheinland

  1907

  —

  —

  1

  273,972

  2

  601,768

  3

  499,020

  Posen

  1907

  —

  —

  1

  273,972

  2

  601,768

  3

  499,020

  Ersatz Oldenburg

  1908

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  479,454

  2

  804,304.

  Ersatz Siegfried

  1908

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  479,454

  2

  804,304

  Ersatz Beowulf

  1908

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  479,454

  2

  804,304

  Ersatz Hildebrand

  1909

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  479,454

  Ersatz Heimdall

  1909

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  479,454

  Ersatz Prithjof

  1909

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  479,454

  Armoured Cruisers.—

  Blucher

  1906

  1

  225,049

  2

  425,636

  3

  376,711

  —

  —

  "F"

  1907

  —

  —

  1

  249,510

  2

  576,321

  3

  520,548

  "G"

  1908

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  401,174

  2

  723,089

  "H"

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  479,454

  Obstruction in Downing St. (Mrs. Duval).
  Mr. SUMMERBELL
  asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Mrs. Duval, recently sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment in connection with the recent disturbance at Downing Street, though a member of the Women's League, was in no way connected with the demonstration, was merely an ordinary spectator, was not near Downing-street, and was not making any obstruction, and that this can be borne out by three independent witnesses; and, if so, in view of her bad state of health, he can see his way to bring about her immediate discharge?

  Mr. GLADSTONE:
  I have made inquiry, and I am informed that the evidence clearly proved the charge of obstruction. Mrs. Duval's health was not very satisfactory when received in prison. She has been admitted to hospital, and is receiving careful treatment.

  Street Accidents (Medical Fees).
  Mr. WEIR
  asked the Home Secretary if he will state the fees payable to doctors and veterinary surgeons, respectively, for attending accidents in the streets and for giving evidence thereon in police courts?

  Mr. GLADSTONE:
  The following are the fees payable:—

  1. To medical men: For attending casualties, 3s. 6d., if between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.; 7s. 6d. if between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. For giving evidence, 10s. 6d. for
  1720
  tracted from the published German Navy Estimates.

  each case, if within two miles from residence, and for each additional mile 2s. 6d., with a maximum total fee of 21s.

  2. To veterinary surgeons: For attending injured horses, 10s. 6d.; for slaughtering, if necessary, 5s., or, if a Greener's humane killer is used, 10s. 6d. I understand that veterinary surgeons never have occasion to give evidence in accident cases.

  Duration of Speeches (House of Commons).
  Mr. REES
  asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to appoint a Committee to consider the question of the duration of speeches delivered in this House; and whether a time limit should, subject to qualifications and conditions, be in any case imposed?

  The PRIME MINISTER:
  I will communicate with the Home Secretary and ascertain whether the Government can see if arrangements can be made to appoint a Select Committee to consider the question of the duration of speeches.

  Imprisoned Suffragettes.
  Mr. SNOWDEN
  asked in what division the women committed to prison in connection with the suffrage demonstration of the 18th ultimo have been placed; and are they treated as political or ordinary prisoners?

  Mr. GLADSTONE:
  These persons are being treated in the second division, as prescribed by Statute in the case of per-

  1721
  sons committed in default of finding sureties. The Act makes no distinction between the different persons who may be placed in the second division.

  Mr. BYLES
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that doubts have been cast on the police evidence upon which some ladies were convicted for obstructing the police outside the House of Commons on the evening of the 18th February; that it was admitted by witnesses on both sides that Mrs. Despard, Miss FitzHerbert, and Miss Sidley used no violence or force whatever; and, if they were guilty only of a technical offence in carrying on a political agitation, can he see his way to reduce their sentence or modify their disciplinary treatment?

  Mr. GLADSTONE:
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for West Donegal, to which I have nothing to add.

  Mr. BYLES
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received representations that Mrs. Duval and Miss Seruya, who were convicted at the Westminster Police Court for obstructing the police on the night of 18th February, were the victims of mistaken and wrongful arrest, and that these ladies, supported by three respectable eyewitnesses, emphatically deny that they obstructed the police or pushed any constable; and will he satisfy himself by adequate inquiry that legal injustice is not being committed by keeping these ladies in gaol.

  Mr. GLADSTONE:
  I have made inquiry of the Magistrate, and am informed that
  1722
  the evidence given in the case of these ladies clearly proved the charge brought against them of obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.

  A Waterworks Accident.
  Mr. JOHN WARD:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a fatal accident to a man employed upon the Derwent Valley waterworks on the 24th February; and whether the officers of his Department have made any report upon the subject; and, if so, what is the nature of the same?

  Mr. GLADSTONE:
  This accident has not been reported to my Department, but I have ascertained that it was reported under the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894, to the Board of Trade, and that it was due to the fall of a crane, which occurred while large water pipes were being unloaded by means of it.

Preamble
TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  SOUTH LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    CLEVEDON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
HOPS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to prohibit the use of Hop Substitutes in the Brewing and Preservation of Beer and the Importation of Hops except in bags properly marked — Was presented by the Viscount Hardinge; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 7.)
ZETLAND MASONIC SICK AND WIDOWS AND ORPHANS FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDIAN COUNCILS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN)My Lords, before moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I desire, with your Lordships' indulgence, to make one or two observations. The debate on the Second Reading was a very remarkable one in many respects. There was, if I may say so, great knowledge shown. Noble Lords, with enormous experience and knowledge of India gave the House the benefit of their opinions on the Bill, and I am bound to say that the criticism was perfectly fair, and that it was made in a temper towards the Bill and towards those who were responsible for it of which no kind of complaint could be made.
256
I think the noble Lord who was my predecessor at the India Office described truly the mood of the House when, in an early sentence of his most interesting speech, he said the House and the country had come to a position when we had to face the facts, and that the facts we had to face made it impossible either to stand still or not to make a move in advance. I believe that the passing of the Second Reading of the Bill without a Division was a sign of the sense that this House has of the peculiarity and gravity of the situation we have to meet. It was inevitable, in such a situation and with a Bill of the magnitude and importance of this, that the authors of the Bill should have to face a great deal of criticism and observations, and two or three noble Lords opposite, and one or two behind me, did criticise the Bill and make points of objection to this or that feature in it. It was impossible to bring forward any Bill whatever, whether a very moderate Bill or a fuller Bill such as the one we are now talking about, without exposing a good deal of surface to criticism; but, having carefully studied and weighed all the points that were made on the Second Reading, I do not feel that the foundation or substance of the Bill has been damaged, or that any good reason has been shown why we should not proceed with it, and proceed with it with a determination—this is a very important point—not to whittle it away in Committee, not to defeat the effect which, as Lord Curzon admitted, it had had of relaxing the tension in India—that nothing done in Committee shall impair that most desirable consequence.
It has been said that I, as the responsible Minister, have rushed this Bill, or, at all events, some points of it, and I have seen it stated in some of the Indian telegrams that there was a frantic haste in the construction of this measure. I cannot imagine what people can mean who consider the facts. It is three years ago since this policy was, as it were, put on the anvil. The Government of India sent a Despatch containing their views of the policy which they hoped might be embodied in a measure, so far as Parliamentary sanction was necessary. We at the India Office considered those proposals most carefully. We sent them back a reply begging them to reconsider this or that point and to submit

257
the whole case to the local Governments and local authorities. That was done. It took a very long time, but it was very carefully and even exhaustively done. The end of it was a second Despatch in October of last year. We considered it again, and made certain modifications in it. But those were not hastily made. Does anyone believe that an Indian Secretary, is there any one of the fifteen men who have held the office of Indian Secretary who would have dreamed of framing and completing a measure of this importance without consultation with the Viceroy and the Government of India? It was quite impossible and inconceivable, and I can only say that I am entirely guiltless of the frantic haste and hurry of which I have been sometimes definitely accused.
The noble Marquess opposite pointed to the last stage of all, and referred to my requirement, so to call it from the Government of India, that their views, so far as the heads of the regulations were concerned, should be in my possession when I had to move the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House. It is quite true that no great length of time was given for the consideration of those proposals to be framed afterwards in the regulations. But the local authorities had had all the topics before them for three years, and had had, I think, two solemn and formal inquisitions into them, and had given a great deal of evidence to the Decentralization Commission, much of that evidence touching points now in the Bill. The air had been full of all these topics for three years, and surely, then, there was nothing unreasonable or hurrying in asking these gentlemen and the authorities they represented what they thought as to the line of this or that regulation? I hope, therefore, that noble Lords opposite, and your Lordships at large, will absolve me from having been hasty at all. On the contrary, no one could have been more deliberate or more anxious to have consultation with the Government of India than I was, and I do not believe that anybody there would say otherwise.
I promised, in reply to the request of the noble Marquess opposite, that I would on this occasion describe to the House, so far as I could, the general heads of the regulations so far as we have yet arrived in discussing and settling them. Everybody agrees that it is for the Government of India to shape and frame these regulations
258
in conformity with principles laid down at home, but not arrived at without full consultation and deliberation with them. I will state first the points already settled which were to be dealt with by regulations, rules, or proclamations. The first regulation already settled fixed the number of members of the Imperial Council and the Councils of Madras, Bombay, Bengal, the United Provinces, Eastern Bengal, Punjab, and Burma. I will not trouble your Lordships with the numbers, but they are fixed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEDo they approximate to the maximum laid down in the schedule?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI am not sure that they do. Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to look that up. The number of the Imperial Council is to be sixty-five, including the Viceroy; Madras, Bombay, Bengal, and United Provinces, forty-seven each; Eastern Bengal, thirty-seven; Punjab, twenty-five; and Burmah, seventeen. The next point was the quorum, which was fixed at twenty-one for the Imperial Council; fifteen for Madras, Bombay, Bengal, and United Provinces; twelve for Eastern Bengal; and eight for Punjab and Burma. The third point settled was the term of office, which is three years for ordinary members and one year or less for the class known as experts.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEWho are the experts?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNThey are, I understand, experts who are called in. The noble Marquess would know that better than I do. The expert is a man invited, as I understand, into the Council. We have settled, too, the method of filling casual vacancies. In the case of casual vacancies to be filled by election, the proper body or group of bodies will be informed of the vacancy by the head of the Government and requested to elect a member. If no such member is elected within three months of the date of receiving the request, the head of the Government may then nominate, at his discretion, a person belonging to the community or local area which the body or group of bodies is supposed to represent.
I come to the second head—rules settled in principle. The discussion of the annual

259
financial statement is a most important branch of the new system. I need not dwell upon this system, because it is described very fully and clearly in the Blue-book, and it is not easy to summarise. But, quite shortly, it comes to this. In regard to the Imperial financial statement, the Legislative Council will resolve itself into committee and discuss it by heads sitting de die in diem till it is finished. Each head will be explained by the member in charge, and every member may move resolutions and divide the committee on them; such resolutions being in the form of recommendations to the Government, who, of course, are not bound any more than they are either in your Lordships' House or in another place to take action upon them. When the committee has finished, the Government will make such alterations in the Budget as they think fit, and the Budget in its final form will be submitted to the council, when there will be a general discussion, but no more resolutions. All through, certain items of revenue and expenditure, including the State railways and the Army, are excluded from the debate. That is a very important limitation.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONWhat will be the approximate dates of discussion?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI cannot tell the noble Lord offhand. The discussion on the provincial Budgets will be on somewhat similar lines, except that a standing finance committee of the council will be appointed, not more than twelve in number, and equally divided between officials and non-officials, to consider the Estimates in a private and informal manner in their first stage. In their second stage the council will resolve itself into committee; and in the third stage the council as such will discuss them, as in the case of the Imperial Council. The subjects of general interest will be discussed subject to the following — conditions, which have not yet been put into the form of rules:—(1) Resolutions must relate to matters of public and general importance; (2) no resolution shall of itself have any force or effect; (3) the order of business is to be under the entire control of the president; (4) the president to have power to disallow any resolution if, in his opinion, it is contrary to public policy; (5) certain classes of
260
subjects, to be defined when the rules of the business are drafted, to be expressly excluded. So much for the matters that are settled in principle.
The Bill leaves the following points to be dealt with by regulations, rules, or proclamation. There are three possible ways of proceeding—regulation, rules (a narrower instrument), and proclamation, which only arises, I think, in two or three cases. The points to be dealt with are:—(1) The number of members, only the maximum being fixed by the Bill; (2) the number of a quorum; (3) the term of office; (4) the manner of filling casual vacancies; (5) the conditions under which and the manner in which persons resident in India may be nominated or elected; (6) the qualifications for being nominated or elected a member. There are rules not yet settled affecting the discussion of the annual financial statement, the asking of questions, and so on. As to the Executive Councils, they are to be called into existence by proclamation, and we are now considering—and the Government of India especially—what powers of the Lieutenant-Governor shall be exercised by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the number of the members of council, their qualifications, their powers and duties, and the way of appointing temporary and acting members.
The next question is the regulations still under consideration. All that has been decided as to the manner of election—and this, of course, affects the burning question of Mahomedan representation—is that there is to be election in the proper and natural sense. The ordinary way for nomination was for the Viceroy or Lieutenant-Governor to ratify the recommendation. The question arises—Ought we to persevere with that system and still retain what is called nomination, but what is really ratification or confirmation in the case of members elected? The view of the Government is that it would make election rather—I do not say farcical in effect, but it would certainly make it look farcical if, after expanding the Act of 1892 in order to carry further the principle of election, we reserved to executive authorities the power of saying whether election should be void or should be a valid choice. We have decided that there is to be no ratification.
Of course, that leads to the necessity of going into the question of qualification.

261
Every legislative body—certainly the House of Commons—exercises its right of excluding from membership within it persons coming within certain categories. We have not yet quite settled what those disqualifications are to be, and the Government of India in a telegram about ten days ago have provisionally proposed the following as disqualified persons:—(1) Females; (2) persons of unsound mind; (3) persons under twenty-five years of age; (4) insolvents, subject to the conditions which exist in our own country in the matter of bankruptcy; (5) persons who have been convicted of a non-bailable offence, when such sentence has not subsequently been quashed or reversed; (6) persons who have been dismissed from the service of the Government—the noble Marquess will recollect a discussion on the propriety of the exclusion when he was Viceroy—and declared ineligible for employment under the Government in future. The Government of India are now specially considering a question undoubtedly of great moment—namely, whether the persons dealt with under Regulation 3 under the Act of 1818, should be declared for ever disqualified. Nine or more persons are now deported under that regulation. I slipped into an error the other day in replying to Viscount Midleton on this subject. The noble Viscount asked a question upon this point along with others. I meant to answer some in the affirmative, and in doing so slipped into the error. I do not now bind myself to take the view I then expressed. I think it requires a great deal of consideration. All these questions of disqualification have come into prominence because of the cessation of the ratification and confirmation from executive authorities. The moment you arrested that process it became necessary to lay down rules and categories of exclusion. In regard to all these categories, and in the question of the deported men and so forth, I hope the House will take the counsel which my noble friend Lord Courtney gave the other day and which, I confess, I have much at heart. I think it is vital for the success of this policy and this measure. If we are going to give these great extensions of power, let us not do it in a grudging way. If we make the list of disqualifications too large, if we include certain classes of people in India, I am afraid it would leave what I may call a "ragged edge" behind. It is vital that we should leave as little ragged edge as
262
possible, if ragged edge there be at all. Of course it will be necessary to make provision to meet the case of corruption in elections. On any member becoming disqualified under any of these heads, the head of the Government will have power to declare his seat vacant. It is proposed by the Government of India that the oath or declaration of allegiance should be taken by every nominated or elective member before he takes his seat, and unless he does so he shall not be qualified to sit.
As to the rules as to questions, there are already rules on this subject, and the only important alteration will probably be in respect of supplementary questions. We heard a great deal in the debate on the Second Reading as to the evils that would arise from a promiscuous multitude of supplementary questions such as we are familiar with in this country. Upon this point no final decision has been arrived at, but the Government of India propose as follows—namely, that no discussion shall be permitted in respect to an answer under this rule; that a member who has asked a question may be permitted to put a supplementary question or questions for the purpose of further elucidating any matter of fact upon which information has been asked for in the original question; and that the president may disallow a supplementary question without giving any reason therefor. That is the last explanation with which I need trouble the House as to the purport and scope of the rules and regulations, and I hope the noble Marquess will consider that I have explained them pretty fully and discharged the pledge which I gave on the Second Reading.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Morley of Blackburn.)
LORD HARRISMy Lords, I think it was understood, at the conclusion of the debate on the Second Reading, that those noble Lords who had not had an opportunity, owing to the exigencies of the convenience of your Lordships' House, of speaking on that occasion should be allowed, on the Motion to go into Committee, to offer their remarks as if it were the Second Reading stage. I should not, even with that permission, have presumed to intervene at this stage were it not for an overwhelming feeling that, having had the honour of administer-

263
ing the affairs of some millions of His Majesty's subjects in India, it is my duty to express my sense of the momentous importance of the proposals in this Bill, proposals which contain a germ not unlike the mustard seed.
I shall not detain your Lordships at any length on the subject of the enlargement of the Legislative Councils. It was my duty in 1892 to apply the Act of that year to the Legislative Council of the Government of Bombay. It fell to my lot to distribute the new seats that were allotted to various interests and classes, and that distribution has, upon the whole, stood the test of time, subject, I believe, to one alteration. As to the enlargement of the Legislative Councils, I see no great objection to it, but I think I might warn your Lordships that it will not add so largely to information on the subject of a legislative proposal as might be supposed, because such proposals are subjected to opinions of responsible bodies representing different classes, interests, professions, and I might almost say trades, before the matter is introduced to the Legislative Assembly. I do not, therefore, think that the enlargement of these Councils will add very much to the information given to the public in discussion beyond what has already been given under the old system.
As regards the subject of interpellation, I was delighted to hear from the noble Viscount that a rule will give the president full authority to disallow a supplementary question. That is very desirable in a country like India, where, however hard the work of the secretariats may be, and however anxious the officials are to do their whole duty, the Departments have not the means of obtaining information in order to reply to questions accurately such as exist in this country. The only other point with regard to the Legislative Councils on which I would touch is that of the annual financial statement, and really the Governor in Council has not very much latitude, the amounts being very largely ear-marked. I should like to illustrate what my own experience was in this matter. I suppose I was as much abused during my time as most Governors and Lieutenant-Governors, and I attributed a large part of that abuse to the fact that, as regards such money as I could allot, outside of the ear marked amount, to education, I did allot to primary education in preference to
264
higher and secondary education. That aroused the animus and the hatred of a very large part of the vernacular Press engineered by the Brahmins, who were disappointed that the money should go to classes whom they despised. I think, however, I shall have the sympathy of the noble Viscount in that I tried to do my best for primary education.
I turn to the proposals with regard to the Executive Councils, for, in my bumble opinion, they are the most momentous that have been put before Parliament in regard to India since the administration of that country was taken over by the Crown; and I ask myself two or three questions: Are the it men the noble Viscount wishes to find to be found in such numbers as to allow any choice? Are the conditions of intimacy in India such as to facilitate consultation within the Executive Council? Lastly, will these changes add to or maintain that confidence in absolute impartiality which is the strength of British rule in India? It is as well to bear in mind that my remarks apply solely to Presidential Councils, upon which the noble Viscount evidently contemplates putting two more members.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI never said that.
LORD HARRISWell, in the Bill it is provided that there shall be two more ordinary members.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNThere may be.
LORD HARRISThere may be two more ordinary members. In his speech in the autumn, the noble Viscount used expressions which have undoubtedly excited the hopes of those classes in India whose one aim and object is to obtain an official position. It is evident that they contemplate that the seats will be given to natives in India; and as the noble Viscount has provided in the Bill for two additions to the Provincial Councils I cannot help thinking he has in his mind the fact that if native members are added to these councils it will be obligatory to divide the seats between Mahomedans and Hindus. Up to now, in the case of the two members of the Governors' Councils it has been customary—at any rate, it was in Bombay—to divide

265
those seats evenly between the revenue side and the judicial side. It is well to bear in mind what has been said by the noble Viscount and two other noble Lords as regards the individuals whom it may be possible to find. It is significant that the noble Viscount and Lord Reay had in mind the judicial service—gentlemen who had gone in for the profession of an advocate or of a judge. The noble Viscount appealed for our sympathy as to what kind of reply he was to make to some distinguished lawyer if he had to explain that he could not select him for the Viceroy's Council; and evidently he had in his mind that it was more likely to be somebody in the legal line who would be selected than one in the administrative line. My noble friend opposite—Lord Reay—said he had no hesitation in saying he could have found a suitable native gentleman if he had been asked to select some one for his Council, and I cannot help thinking that he had in his mind a distinguished Judge. I think that is rather ominous.
Where will the distinguished men on the revenue side be found? The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, had to go back for thirty years to find two such native gentlemen. I had the advantage the other day of discussing this subject with a distinguished ex-Indian Civil Servant who approved of the noble Viscount's proposals. I suppose his service was thirty or thirty-five years. I asked him to tell me, in his long experience, how many natives he could, in fact, say he would have trusted as certain to be just and courageous in a crisis. He thought for some little time and then replied "Two"—and that in an experience of thirty or thirty-five years! If on the Executive Governments two members of the legal profession are to be added to the one judicial member already there, the revenue side of the councils is going to be swamped. Quite three-fourths of the work of an Executive Council is revenue work. Some of that work is bound to come up for discussion before the whole Council; and I know from experience that there is very often a want of sympathy between the legal and revenue sides, which will make it most dangerous for the latter; and, after all, it is the revenue side that one has to think most of in the administration of the affairs of those silent millions.
I had some experience of trying to select a native of India for a very high position.
266
I had to appoint a gentleman to an acting position as collector for a month or two, and I had to make up my mind whether I should appoint a native gentleman or a European. I knew the native gentleman in question; he came of a distinguished branch of a family who had been accustomed to revenue work. I had this responsibility, that if I selected him and he made no mistake my successor would be bound to make the same promotion when the next acting vacancy occurred. I selected the native gentleman believing he was capable, and during that term nothing critical arose and he did not fail. My successor, as I anticipated, had to appoint him again. Something critical, however, did arise at that time, and he retired and allowed a young police officer of three years service to run the whole show. That is not by any means a solitary instance of incapacity for revenue work amongst the natives of India. I do not know why it is, but the native does prefer the judicial side and he leaves the revenue side to Europeans; and I am apprehensive that, under the proposals outlined by the noble Viscount, the revenue side is going to be swamped.
I next turn to a very delicate subject which was touched upon the other night by the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, and which goes to the root of the whole matter. I ask myself whether the addition of these native gentlemen to the Governors' and Lieutenant-Governors' Councils will improve the intercommunication between the members of those Councils. Will this novelty which is going to be introduced lead to greater harmony? I am afraid that it is impossible for the European to know the natives of India even as well as he can know the natives of many other parts of Asia, and for this reason, that he is rigidly excluded from the home life of Hindus and Mahomedans. A native can judge what is the effect of home influence upon a European; the European cannot judge what is the effect of home influence upon a native public man. When it has fallen to the lot of one of your Lordships to entertain an Asiatic gentleman in your own home, what was the class of hospitality you offered? I venture to say that it was complete, that you welcomed him to your domestic circle where, if he pleased, he could judge, in the confines of the society of your wife or daughters or family, what influences the domestic circle had upon your opinion as a public man. But the European has no

267
opportunity of forming the same opinion in regard to a native of India. It is their religion, their custom; we have bowed to it most respectfully and have made no effort to intrude upon their privacy. But it must make some difference as regards our social acquaintance with them. I ask, therefore, Is the introduction of these native gentlemen going to maintain those harmonious relations within the Governor's Council which it is desirable should be maintained? Is it going to maintain that confidence in the impartiality of British rule which is, as I have already said, our strongest weapon in India? I am a little doubtful, seeing that so many questions come up in which the animosity of the two great religions are concerned.
Let me illustrate my point by a personal experience. Soon after I arrived in India a terrible calamity occurred. Two poor Parsee girls were killed by a fall from the tower of the University of Bombay, and the whole Parsee community was convulsed with the conviction—it amounted to that in the minds of a large number of them, and to suspicion amongst the more thoughtful, perhaps—that this was due to violence caused or threatened by some Mahomedans. Your Lordships may ask what business that was of Government. You may say it was the business of the coroner's jury to ascertain the cause of death. But India is a country of petitions. A petition came in this case to Government making allegations, and it had to be answered. I trust that our answer was just, but, whether it was or not, I am certain it was regarded as absolutely impartial. But if there had chanced to be at that time a Mahomedan sitting as a member of the Governor's Executive Council I do not think the confidence in the impartiality of that decision would have been quite as strong.
At moments of crisis and of great difficulty I personally would prefer to depend upon the experience as well as the impartiality and the courage of men who have been tried in public positions. When I went to India the distinguished Judge to whom reference was made the other day was regarded as a leader of advanced thought and of reform among the Hindus in some domestic matters. The subject of infant marriage was a very critical one at the time. The following year, I think it was, I heard that distinguished native gentleman hissed in Convocation in Bombay
268
because his infant daughter had been married. I cannot help thinking that domestic influence had been too strong, even in the case of a man of the highest judicial reputation, of the most eminent ability, and of the most attractive personality. A crisis came in that man's life, and, for some reason or other, he failed. Yet he was a man who would have been picked out amongst all the natives in that part of India for capacity to fill such a distinguished and responsible position as that of a member of the Viceroy's Council. Those are the thoughts that have been passing through my mind since the noble Viscount propounded his scheme last year. I listened with the closest attention to the speech of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer), because I thought I recognised that there had been the same doubt in his mind as to whether these changes would, after all, be for the advantage of India, and that, of course, is what we are all striving for.
Brought up as a child in India, I personally have to thank the natives of India for that devoted attention which they give to European children. I have travelled all over India and have had the honour of administering the affairs of a large Province. I have been most profoundly anxious as to whether what the noble Viscount now proposes will conduce to the advantage of those millions whose comfort, rest, and peace depend upon the impartiality of our rule. I have come to a conclusion different from that of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer. I cannot get over my apprehensions that it this great and momentous change of adding natives to the Executive Council of the Viceroy and of the Presidential Governors we are running serious risk of qualifying that confidence in our impartiality which has been the glory of our system of government and which, whatever happens, must ever redound to our credit, and which I honestly believe to be our greatest safeguard.
LORD NORTHCOTEMy Lords, in the list of points which the noble Viscount read out, some as being settled and others still undetermined, there was one point which he said was not absolutely fixed yet—namely, the question of the number of members on the Councils. I would like to ask the noble Viscount whether the principle is definitely fixed that there is to be a non-official majority on the Provincial Councils. If that is still open to recon-

269
sideration, I should like to urge a few reasons against it; and, if it is fixed, I should like to explain why I most respectfully differ from the noble Viscount on the matter.
I submit that there are three reasons why this need not be done, at all events at the present moment. In the first place, this Bill, if it passes into law, will confer very largely-increased powers upon the natives of India, and, even if this provision securing them a majority upon the Legislative Councils were abandoned, they, nevertheless, would reap very distinct advantages under the Bill. In the second place I would point out that even Mr. Gokhale, one of the most prominent leaders of native opinion in India, never pleaded for more than a "respectable minority" on the Viceroy's Council. I cannot see why what is sauce for the goose should not be sauce for the gander, and why, if the Secretary of State considers that an official majority is necessary on the Viceroy's Council, it is not equally, or almost equally, necessary on the Provincial Councils. Then, in the third place, I submit that in reality this Bill is more in the nature of a disfranchising than an enfranchising measure, because it will take away power from the British representatives—who, as the late Lord Kimberley said, alone represent the hundreds of millions of agriculturists—and give the control of the Councils into the hands of what I may term professional middle-class politicians, the Banias and barristers, backed by the Brahmins, who represent but an insignificant minority of the people.
So far as it is a question of securing from the local Government or from the Imperial Government concessions in the matter of abatements or advances of public money, I quite acknowledge that these gentlemen will always be ready to make appeals and pass resolutions or votes in favour of obtaining such remissions. But now may I quote an instance which occurred to myself, and which will explain why I have had to make a somewhat uncomplimentary reference to a considerable section of my then native advisers? In the year 1901 the attention of the Bombay Government was drawn by a very distinguished Indian civilian, Sir Frederic Lely, whose services have recently been utilised by His Majesty's Government in a very important and interesting Report on Decentralisation,
270
to the miserable condition in which the agriculturists of Gujarat found themselves owing to the enormous proportion of their number who were helpless in the grip of the moneylender. Their farms were all mortgaged up to the hilt, and noble Lords acquainted with the conditions of life in India know that when an unfortunate ryot once gets into the grip of the moneylender he is in a state of servitude for the remainder of his life, from which he has not one chance in a thousand of escape. My colleagues and I brought in a measure prohibiting the ryot from mortgaging more than two-thirds of his holding. It was a Bill containing that one single principle. The native members had ample time to consider it. They memorialised my noble friend Lord Curzon, and got up an agitation throughout the Province declaring that we were attempting to take away one-third of the ryots' property; and when we brought the measure forward in Council, after an unsuccessful attempt to postpone the measure for six months they rose in a body and left the Council Chamber. As we had an official majority I was wholly unmoved by the spectacle, which I have seen many a time in another place, and we passed the Bill, which I am happy to learn from the accounts I have since received from India has been of very great advantage to the poor cultivators of Gujarat. But supposing that, instead of our having an official majority, the native members had possessed such a majority. In that case they could have postponed the Bill, fostered agitation throughout the Province, and kept the native cultivators in a state of misery. Therefore it is that I am very unwilling to abandon the principle of the retention of an official majority. What is to happen? The noble Viscount says that any resolutions to which the Government of the day object can be simply ignored or disallowed. But surely it is more reasonable and more constitutional that they should be vetoed by a majority than that the Governor should be continually placed in the position of being at first outvoted in Council and then of exercising his authority in disallowing or ignoring the resolutions adopted.
One word more with regard to the question of the appointment of natives. The noble Viscount spoke of the eminent qualifications which many natives undoubtedly possess, but I think rather for judicial than for administrative work. I agree with my noble friend Lord Harris on that point, and

271
I think it is very easily explained by the fact that the work of a Judge is rather to interpret a law already made, in the interpretation of which the keen and subtle intellect of the native finds ample scope, than to carry on the administrative duties which fall upon the shoulders of a revenue officer. There are many points upon which, if time permitted, I would gladly have said a few words. But I may say that I associate myself most entirely with the general criticisms on the Bill which have fallen from the noble Lords sitting below me. I will not waste time by repeating imperfectly what they have said much better. I can only say, in conclusion, that although I do dissent very strongly from this provision of the Bill, I do so in no party spirit. I recognise the great zeal and ability which the noble Viscount has shown in framing this measure, and I sincerely trust I shall never take any share in mere party opposition to a Government charged with so difficult and delicate a task as the administration of our Indian Empire.
LORD WENLOCKMy Lords, the noble Viscount has invited us to agree to the proposals he has submitted in this Bill, and I hope I may say for myself, as one who has taken a part in the administration of public affairs in India, that I have approached this subject with the very greatest anxiety and interest. I am well aware that the noble Viscount has been placed in a position of enormous difficulty and has had to confront problems which did not present themselves at that time, many years ago, when I was in India; and I trust that in the remarks I may have to make to-day I shall not say anything to add to his difficulties.
Turning, in the first place, to the Legislative Councils, I have not concealed from myself that the time must come when we would be bound to associate the natives of India more with us in the government of the country. At the same time I think it is of the utmost importance that care should be taken that none but the very best men should be selected for these positions. I failed to gather from the noble Viscount how many of these members of Council it is proposed should be put forward by popular election; but I understand that the members so elected are to take their place without any power of veto on the part of the Governor. The noble Viscount said that he considered fitness the real test of eligibility, and I ask him whether he thinks popular
272
election is going to be the means by which he will discover the fittest men to take these responsible places. I think the noble Viscount will have very great difficulty in applying that test, because the best men in India, those whom the Government would like to see associated with them in the government of the country, will not be willing to submit to the ordeal of popular election. Therefore I should be very glad to know that only a small number are to be elected by popular election, and that the regulations will be so drawn as to enable the selection of the best men to aid in this particular work.
I come to the question of the Executive Councils. I have an Amendment on the Paper regarding this particular measure, and I will state the reasons which have actuated me in putting down that Amendment. As I read the Bill, it will be open to the Secretary of State in future to appoint two natives on the Executive Councils of the Governors of Bombay and Madras and also on the Councils of Lieutenant-Governors. With a Council consisting of two European and two native members a Governor will be called upon to decide all questions which may arise between the two sections, and, whatever may be his decision, he will be subjected to a great deal of hostile criticism from the party which he does not happen to please. This is a very invidious and difficult position in which to place the Governor, and it is a point which requires most careful consideration. The Amendment I have placed on the Paper is to the effect that the consideration of this particular proposal should be postponed for the present. I was much struck with what fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, when he suggested that it would be very much better that the House should be in possession of the views of the Government of India and of the local Governments themselves on this particular question before it was pressed forward. I hope the noble Viscount will allow this to be done, and will bring in a separate Bill presently containing the proposal he may have on this subject cleared up by the views which may be expressed by the various Governments concerned. I press this upon him, because I feel that this is one of the most important measures which have ever been submitted for the government of India.
The proposal to associate two native gentlemen with the actual day-to-day work

273
of the Government is an important and novel step, and one upon which the destinies of India will depend in a very large degree for a long time to come. Therefore I beg that your Lordships will allow this matter to be hung up, as it were, if only for a short time. I think it is important that we should know more of the subject before we allow the Bill to pass in its present form, and I sincerely hope that when my Amendment is reached we shall hear that the noble Viscount is willing to give time for consideration and consultation with those most deeply affected. I was rather surprised to hear the other day from my noble friend who leads the House that we ought not to concern ourselves with more than the conditions of the moment and should not bother our heads very much about what will occur one hundred years hence.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)I ought to explain what I said, because I see that it has been Misunderstood not only by my noble friend opposite but also by some writers in the Press. I was alluding to what seemed to me the rather unfortunate intervention of a prophecy by my noble friend behind me—
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHI expressly said I was not prophesying.
THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Lord may not place his prediction precisely in the form of a prophecy, but he seemed to foretell certain possibilities with regard to very extensive changes in the government of India, and I merely intervened to state my opinion that the less said about large changes in the future form of Indian government the better for everybody. I did not for a moment mean that we should not now take action with an eye to the future, or with an endeavour to forecast what would be best in the years to come for the advantage of the Empire.
LORD WENLOCKI am sorry if I misrepresented what the noble Earl intended to convey. As far as I can see, the effect of the measures now proposed will be felt in India one hundred years hence and a good many years after that; and as future generations will erect a superstructure on the foundations we are laying now, it behoves us carefully to consider these proposals before we agree to them.
LORD SANDHURSTMy Lords, so many ex-Governors have addressed your Lordships that it is with great hesitation that I add to their number, but I shall not detain you for more than a few minutes. One cannot help sympathising with the aspirations of my noble friend the Secretary of State, as portrayed in the statement which he laid before your Lordships a few days ago, and there are few who will deny that the Act of 1892 requires some extension. But, in listening to the noble Viscount, one is so charmed with his speeches, couched in so lofty a tone and full of such high ideals, that one is apt to be carried away and to think those ideals almost attained, leaving out of sight or not analysing the means by which they are to be reached. I do not think any one of your Lordships was unmoved by the speech delivered by my predecessor in the Governorship of Bombay (Lord Harris), and I am bound to say that in a great deal that he said I find myself in concurrence. But one or two speeches have been delivered containing criticisms of a very vital nature, and when I listened to the speech of the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Curzon), I almost expected that he would move the rejection of the Bill. While, however, one may agree with many of the criticisms that have been made, it is quite obvious, I think, to any one who knows India, that to move the rejection of this Bill, to say nothing of carrying that Motion, would have a very bad effect.
The one or two points on which I wish to touch are those having to do with administration. Lord Curzon referred to the derangement and dislocation which would occur when officers were taken away from their work to attend these Councils. I go further than the noble Lord. I say that we have not enough men to do the work as it is, even in times when things are going smoothly. In my time I was so unfortunate as to have my Presidency devastated by two calamities—plague and famine. I had to take officials from every conceivable department to carry on the work of administration, and also to borrow a great many men from the Military Department, who did their work admirably. But if I had had to send some of my most experienced men to the Viceroy's Council the difficulties would have been considerably increased. As to supplementary questions, I can conceive their being extremely disagreeable and tiresome for the

275
presidents of the Councils and also for the officers who may have to answer them; but I do not think that is quite such a vital matter as has been stated. With regard to the civilians themselves, I have generally found that they are capable of doing most things, and, as circumstances develop, I have no doubt that, irksome as the duty will be, it will be well done.
I say nothing as to the effect of the inclusion of native Indians on the Viceroy's Council, though I concur in the opinion that the change will rather weaken than add strength to the Government of India. My noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has spoken of this as an enabling Bill, but as the prospect of a seat on the Executive Council has been held out to the natives, I do not see how you can possibly withhold it. It is as good as promised, so far as I understand the Bill. I see that an Amendment has been placed on the Paper to the effect that the qualification for membership of the Executive Councils should be the same for an Indian as for a European—namely, twelve years service. But I am afraid that, even if you find men good enough for the position of chief of a department—and I am afraid I must concur in much that was said by Lord Harris as to that—you will be drawing those members from one class of the community to the exclusion of others, whilst if you do not have a qualification you will find yourselves in the difficult position of being compelled to take men inexperienced in Government work. The position of a member of an Executive Council is not merely one of honour and glory; it entails also being the head of a department or a group of departments. A department takes its character entirely from that of the man who is its head. The character of the head of the department may be said to permeate it; his experience guides it, and his knowledge stimulates it, and I am anxious as to what would happen in the various departments if you got men inexperienced and untrained in Government service at their head.
One thing which occurs to me is whether the quinquennial period is not too long for these Indian gentlemen to hold office in the Executive Government. There are, of course, the two great communities, the Mahomedans and Hindus, but in the Presidency of Bombay there is another community of great position and great enter-
276
prise, the Parsees, who also have shown considerable aptitude for affairs. With the quinquennial period it might be ten years before one of those gentlemen got office. Perhaps the noble Viscount will consider whether it would not be advisable, so as to enable the change in the representation of the communities to work more smoothly, to shorten the period of office.
Those are the points to which I desire to draw attention. But, at the same time, I cannot help sharing in some of the apprehensions that have been expressed by noble Lords of similar experience in India to my own. We have done so much—slowly, it is true, but everything in the East is slow—we have done so much for social improvement in India, for the redemption of woman, the protection of girlhood, the raising of low castes from the bondage of centuries, and the preservation if not the creation of the rights of ryots, that I am rather fearful that, if there is any weakening at the centre or at the extremities of the Government, we will be giving a certain set back to that slow but gradual and assured improvement. And as we are not legislating for to-day, or even for a few years hence, but are at the beginning of something the end of which we cannot really foresee, I sincerely trust that the regulations will be framed by the Governor-General in Council with the utmost care, caution and consideration.
VISCOUNT CROSSMy Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate except for the fact that I was responsible to Parliament for the introduction of the Act of 1892. A Paper of Lord Dufferin's, when he was Viceroy, got out surreptitiously in some way, and this forced our hands at that time and made it necessary to do something; and when my noble friend Lord Lansdowne became Viceroy he and I concocted the Act of 1892. Thanks to the way in which that Act has been administered, I think everyone will admit that, as far as it goes, it has been a great success. I believe my noble friend at that time would have gone a considerable step further than we did in that Act, but I had the greatest possible difficulty with my colleagues in the Cabinet in inducing them to permit me to introduce at that time even the Bill as it was passed. Many of them had great apprehensions, and the noble Marquess who was then at the head of the Government, Lord

277
Salisbury, had the greatest possible objection to many provisions in the Bill; but he ultimately yielded to argument, and he said he was quite satisfied with the way in which afterwards it was worked.
Now I, for one, am quite prepared to say that, although I believe that Act, thanks to the way in which it has been administered, has worked extremely well, the time has come when further advance ought to be made in the same direction; and I congratulate the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India on the cautious way in which he has approached the subject. I have no fault to find individually with the provisions in the Bill which deal with the discussion of the Budget and with supplementary questions. I observed with great pleasure that when the noble Viscount received a deputation from the Mahomedans, for whom I have great respect and regard, he met them as far as he could on many points, and I was pleased to see that they were met in such a spirit. One point on which I, in common with many noble friends, have very great doubt is the placing of a native on the Viceroy's Executive Council. I agree with a great deal that has been said as to the danger that may take place in consequence. As there is only to be one on the Viceroy's Council, I think the Government will find itself in a difficulty when it deals with Mahomedans and Hindus. If the native upon it is a Hindu, the Mahomedans, I apprehend, will not acquiesce, and if he is a Mahomedan, the Hindus will not acquiesce. I do not suggest that two should be appointed, though I understand there will be two on the Executive Councils.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNNot necessarily.
VISCOUNT CROSSNot necessarily. There may be; but there are not to be two on the Viceroy's Council. I have not yet heard in this debate how the idea of having natives on the Executive Councils is viewed by the rulers of the Native States in India. Perhaps the noble Viscount will be able to give us some information on that point. I entirely agree that so far as the regulations and rules are concerned, they must, to a very great extent, be left to the Government of India itself. The mere fact that the Government of India has, so to speak,
278
sanctioned the admission of a native into the Executive Council puts it in a very different form in England, because if we were to reject that after it has been accepted in India, it would have a bad effect.
I see that there is an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that the regulations should be laid before both Houses of Parliament for actual discussion. I entirely object to that. You cannot govern India by Provisional Orders. The subject is far too large; but I have not the smallest doubt that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State will give us every explanation that is required as to the main principles of the regulations, leaving matters of detail to be settled entirely by the Government of India. I sincerely hope the House will now go into Committee, on the Bill, and, as it has been introduced after a great deal of discussion in India, I think it would be fatal to reject it; and the effect in India would be extremely bad if the Bill were tampered with in Committee in either House of Parliament.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Moved, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.—(Viscount Morley of Blackburn.)
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, this is, perhaps, the best moment at which to say something in addition to what was said the other day and in the light of what has passed this afternoon on the question of numbers. The question of numbers on the new councils, both of the Viceroy and of the Governors, is raised by sub-section 2 of Clause 1. I must confess that I had hoped that when he addressed us this afternoon the noble Viscount, in addition to giving us the information that he did in respect of the proposed regulations, would have availed himself of the opportunity of replying in some measure to the criticisms and observations that were made the other day, and I rather gathered from the tone of his utterance the other night that that was then his intention. Of course, he is within his right to choose his own moment for giving us

279
further information, and therefore I hope he will pardon us if we take hold of different points in this Bill for endeavouring to elicit something in addition to what he has so far given us.
On the question of numbers, I took the liberty the other day of putting before the House certain considerations which led me, at any rate, and I believe a good many others, to think that the numbers in these new councils will be unduly large. I pointed to my recollection of the fact that in 1892, when the last Bill for the extension of the Legislative Councils was introduced, grave doubt was expressed about the addition of very large numbers to these Councils. Now we have in this Bill a schedule containing the proposed numbers of the Legislative Councils, and the Secretary of State this afternoon has given us the exact numbers which, I understand, are to be fixed by regulation. As regards the Legislative Council of the Viceroy, I would ask him to favour us with some explanation. When the Viceroy and the Government of India put forward their proposals first in August, 1907, they asked for a council of fifty-four. In their letter of October, 1908, which I understood the Government had accepted, they asked for a Council of sixty-three. The schedule of the Bill, as it is printed and in our hands, contains the maximum number for the Council of the Governor-General of sixty, but the noble Viscount this afternoon told us that the number he proposes is to be sixty-five. I think some explanation is required upon that point.
As regards the numbers in general, I hope the House will realise that, while we all agree in principle to the extension of these Councils, and to a considerable extension, yet the numbers we are now asked to accept will mean a very marked and serious change. It is exceedingly doubtful whether you will get suitable men. Lord Sandhurst, speaking from his own experience, said that not only did he have difficulty in finding the men for a much more limited number of posts in his day, but that he was very doubtful whether more would be forthcoming. There is the further point, on which stress was laid the other day and on which I shall be very grateful if we can hear something from the Secretary of State, of the strain that is going to be imposed upon our officials both in the Provincial Councils and still more in the
280
Viceroy's Council. I really can hardly exaggerate what I believe will be the unfortunate effect of this proposal on those officers. The other day Lord Reay, who spoke from his experience of Bombay, said we need not be disturbed about this matter, because officers of the Public Works and the Education Department could be very well taken from their offices and brought into Council to supply the requisite number to vote for Government when required. Public Works officers in India are officers who have to do with the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, tanks, canals, and all the business of irrigation and communications in general, while, as regards education, the work in India is much the same as here. Is it really to be contemplated that, with a view to keep the Government going in the Legislative Councils in India, you are to take these public works and education officers away from their duties and detain them at headquarters day after day in order, in the case of the Viceroy's Council, to give you a majority, and, in the case of the other councils, to prevent their having a serious breakdown? I cannot conceive anything more dangerous to the morale and efficiency of the service.
Then there is the question of expense. I hope the noble Viscount will tell us what he contemplates will be the initial payment and the total cost of these new officers to be placed on the Legislative Councils; and I wish I could persuade him that, by raising these councils to the totals contemplated, he is really going to introduce some of the features which we are all most anxious to keep out of India—the features inseparably attached to a Parliamentary system. If he had given us councils of, say, from thirty to forty or forty-five, I think we should all have accepted them with pleasure; but when I contemplate councils of fifty, and even sixty, I feel that many of those features must arise and that the Government of India will be the sufferers in consequence.
The second point that arises in connection with the question of numbers is that which was raised so forcibly by the noble Lord behind me, Lord Northcote—the question of dispensing with the official majority in the Provincial Councils. This appears to me to be the part of the Bill on which that question can be most easily raised, and I hope the noble Viscount will be able to give

281
us some explanation on the point. Let me recall to the House that this is not a proposal that emanated from the Government of India. It is a proposal that, I believe, has carried with it the consent of the Government of Bombay, for reasons which I endeavoured to explain the other day. To what extent it carries with it the approval of the other. Governors and Lieutenant-Governors we have not been told, but all the ex-Governors sitting in this House who have spoken on the subject have expressed themselves in terms of disapproval; and the principal ground of our disapproval is one which I am sure in its spirit, if not in its form, will commend itself to the noble Viscount. Lord Reay said last week that he was confident he could have passed the same measures as he did even if he had not had an official majority in his Council. True. But his Council was very different from that which is being constructed by the noble Viscount. He had a council of limited numbers, composed for the most part of persons nominated by himself; but now we are to have councils constituted for the most part by election, and we have yet to see what the character of those bodies will be as time develops. Lord Northcote gave a notable experience of his own to-night, which I should like to supplement by mine.
The noble Lord alluded to a case which I remember very well, because I gave him the most ardent support throughout his struggle, in which he was endeavouring to introduce and carry into law a measure of the utmost benefit to the poor cultivators of Gujarat. That measure was received with a storm of misrepresentation and abuse, and I am sure it could not have been carried into law in any Council on which the Governor had not an official majority. I take another case. It fell to me to carry into law, in the Imperial Legislative Council, a measure of a similar character for the prevention of the alienation of land which was going on to an alarming degree among the yeoman class in the Punjab. So much perverted ingenuity and hostility were applied to it in the Punjab that we decided to deal with the measure in the Imperial Legislative Council. Even there we had some difficulty, but we carried it into law in the face of the keenest criticism in the Province, and so great a success has it been for the protection and benefit of the class of people of whom I speak that petitions continually reached the Government of India in my time for an extension
282
of the provisions of the Act to other parts of India. If we had had a local Legislative Council of the character we are going to have in the future under this Bill, if the Lieutenant-Governor had not had an official majority and this Bill had been introduced in such a Council it would have had no shadow of a chance of passing into law.
Take another case. Bengal offers a most striking illustration of the force of what I am saying. During the past fifty years we have been passing a series of measures in order to relieve the unhappy peasants of Bengal from the injurious effects of the Permanent Settlement too hastily conceded more than a hundred years ago. Every one of these proposals has been steadily opposed by the whole of those interests—barrister, professional, land-owning, and so on—which are going to be placed in predominance in future on these councils, and it has only been by the exercise of the official majority and the power of Government that these measures have been passed into law. Noble Lords may say that is all very well, and that no doubt this will be one of the inevitable, and, perhaps, unfortunate results of these changes; but that the Supreme Government may safely be left to deal with such cases. Surely the noble Viscount would not welcome such an idea. Will it not be a serious thing for the future of land legislation if this legislation, hitherto dealt with by the provinces, should be handed over to the Government of India and decided upon possibly over the heads of the local Governments, because you have chosen, for other reasons, to create these large councils and to deprive the Governor of an official majority?
There is only one other consideration I will submit on this point. The other day Lord Crewe, with characteristic humour, said he should not think much of a Governor who would not be able, by diplomatic methods, known, no doubt, well to himself, to keep his non-official members in good hand so that they would vote for such proposals as the Government might desire. I do not say that such methods are unknown in India, but it must be remembered that you have no guarantee that the majority of your Provincial Councils will be members who will be open to those influences. You are throwing open a wide field of election, and there are a good many of us who contemplate that in future you will have

283
returned to these councils a strong body of extremists who will constitute what in this country we should call a permanent Parliamentary opposition; and I think the time may well arrive when the Governor will find it difficult to exercise successfully those powers of persuasion to which the noble Lord referred.
Lastly, let us look at it from the point of view of the members of the Legislative Councils themselves. You are going to invest them with a great responsibility. For the first time you are going to dispense with the supreme power of Government, and trust them to discharge their duties with honour and credit. So far so good. Yet at the same time you do not carry your trust to its logical conclusion, because all the while you hold in reserve the veto of the Governor if he be a Provincial Governor or the authority of the Governor-General in Council if it be an Imperial matter. Well, is that not giving with one hand and taking away with the other? Here you are affecting to give these wide and liberal concessions to natives, and yet you say that, if they abuse them, the Viceroy or the Governor, as the case may be, will have to set matters right. I must say I rather deprecate the Viceroy or the Governor being brought in to extricate the Provincial Councils from the mistakes which they may possibly make. These are the only remarks with which I need trouble your Lordships on this Clause, and they are merely addressed with a view of eliciting from the Secretary of State some information, first, on the point of numbers, and, secondly, on that of the official majority.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNMy Lords, I have listened to the rather powerful observations of the noble Lord with some curiosity. If he takes this view of, for example, the abolition of the principle of an official majority, I am at a loss to understand—I hope he will not think I am taunting him at all—I am at a loss to understand why he did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill, if it contains any principle at all, contains the principle of extending the powers which the measure of Lord Cross first opened. That measure first opened the elective principle, and, by assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, the policy of extending the elective principle is accepted with all its consequences. I know that the noble Lord when he was Viceroy
284
did not see his way to political concessions, but looked to efficiency as the true aim and end of British administration in India. That is a perfectly defensible view, but it is not the view of this Bill. What would be the advantage, what would be the sense of adopting the elective principle, if the councils had at the same time retained the old method of an official majority which would reduce the power of elected members to a mere farce?
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONThe noble Viscount does it on the Viceroy's Council.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNAs I have mentioned all along, the Viceroy's Council is on an entirely different footing. I accept that. The noble Lord will remember that I urged the Government of India, in the case of the Viceroy's Council, to retain the principle of an official majority, because that is not merely a legislative body, but a great executive body, quite different from the Legislative Councils. It would be a complete mockery to invite people to take a larger share in the administration of their country if the official majority were to be retained, and if all resolutions, votes, and proceedings were to be mere pious opinions. That is my answer on that point. The noble Lord does not accept the principle of the Bill. I do not think I am overstating the case. If he did accept the principle of the Bill he would see that to retain in any form the official majority would be to balk the whole purpose of this policy. It has been suggested that the votes of nominated members might take the form of proxies. I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Courtney did not suggest that the other night. It has also been suggested that the Government should fill up cadres to meet their need. I will read the view expressed by the Government of India upon the point raised by the noble Lord as to the inconvenience of officials being withdrawn from their work.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEWhat is the document from which the noble Viscount is about to quote?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNIt is a private telsgram. It is not a document which I should be prepared to lay before Parliament, and therefore I do not

285
technically quote it; but the House will be interested to know the view taken by the Government of India on this argument. They say that their proposals for these Councils were so framed as to reduce this withdrawal to a minimum, and I certainly say, without any hesitation or qualification, that they do not anticipate any difficulty on that ground. In the Viceroy's Council the difficulty will only arise in the case of eight officials nominated, as the noble Lord knows, to represent provinces. One of these, the member who represents Bengal, can discharge his duties as a Bengal official just as readily as before; he is not withdrawn from the scene of his work. As to the provincial members other than the Bengal member, their labours will only be slightly greater than at present. The introduction of debates on matters of public and general interest will tend to furnish occupation for them. While in Calcutta they will not be idle. The remaining official members of the Viceroy's Council will be secretaries of departments, heads of departments, and officers at headquarters, and they can attend the Council in addition to their other duties. In the case of Provincial Councils, the official members will ordinarily be officers stationed at headquarters and will not be withdrawn from their other work. That is the answer on that head. The noble Lord asked for information with regard to the expense of the Bill. That is a perfectly just observation to make, but the estimate is not yet complete, and I am afraid, therefore, I cannot supply noble Lords opposite with any information. As to numbers, the noble Lord has, I think, been slightly confused. He has added to the nominated members the ex-officio members, but they are two different categories of members.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy point was this. As regards the Legislative Council of the Governor-General, I said that in August, 1907, they proposed a council of fifty-four; that then, in the Despatch of October, 1908, which I thought was agreed to by the Secretary of State, the number had risen to sixty-three; that in the schedule of this Bill the maximum number is printed as sixty; but that when the noble Viscount read out to us the regulations this afternoon he gave us the number of the Viceroy's Legislative Council, not as sixty, but as sixty-five, I think there must be some mistake.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNIt may be that there is some mistake. I will have the point carefully looked into.
LORD WENLOCKBefore we pass from the subject of numbers, might I ask the noble Viscount if he can inform the House what are the numbers of the elected members for the Provincial Councils of Madras and Bombay whose election to the Council will not require the assent of the Governors?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNThe Legislative Council of Bombay will consist of—Officials, eighteen; non-officials, twenty-eight; the total, excluding the Governor, is forty-six, the maximum under the Bill being fifty. Fifteen will form a quorum.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORDThe question put by Lord Wenlock raises an important point. I am in favour of the withdrawal of the official majority in Provincial Councils, but I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill on the understanding that the elected members would not be in the majority. I believe the most forward representatives of educated India will be satisfied if the official and non-official nominated members should always be in the majority; in other words, that the elected members should be in the minority. It was on that understanding that I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I should like the noble Viscount to say whether in this assumption I was right or wrong.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNThat, of course, is a point that the Government of India will deal with by regulation. It is not to be dealt with by the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, the noble Viscount has conducted these discussions with so much consideration towards those who sit opposite to him that I noticed, not without regret, an observation that fell from him a moment ago, when he taunted my noble friend behind me with not moving the rejection of the Bill on the Second Reading because my noble friend held strong views as to the size of these Legislative Councils and as to the necessity of maintaining an official majority upon them. When the noble Viscount asks those who share my noble friend's opinions why we did not move the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading,

287
he knows quite well that we should have been very slow indeed to take a step of such tremendous importance as the rejection of a Bill brought to us in the circumstances in which the noble Viscount brings this Bill to us. But, my Lords, because we do not desire to reject the Bill, or, indeed, to move any Amendments in it which could properly be described as wrecking Amendments, we do not consider that we are relieved from the duty of criticising any provisions which seem to us open to criticism, and of giving the noble Viscount the opportunity of affording us the explanation we desire, and it has been with that object that attention has been called to some of these clauses.
The noble Viscount tells my noble friend that two features in his scheme—the large number on the Legislative Councils and the question of the official majority—are in the nature of principles and essential to the measure. Surely it is not fair to describe any one of this series of changes which the noble Viscount proposes as by itself a principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is the popularisation, if I may say so, of the Legislative Councils, and what we have to consider is not so much each of these individual proposals upon its own merits as the cumulative effect of the whole of them when regarded together. Some of us hold very strongly that the large number at which you are going to fix the strength of these councils is a dangerous feature in the Bill. We believe that it tends to convert them into something very different from what they are now, and to make them, in effect, little Parliaments with a great many of the attributes of a Parliament; and when you couple with that the disappearance of the official majority the risk appears to us infinitely greater.
When the noble Viscount tells us that these things form part of the principle of the Bill, I would remind him that the Government of India did not ask for the abandonment of the official majorities. The Government of India desired to keep them, so far as we are aware, and, as my noble friend Lord Northcote told the House this evening, even so extreme a reformer as Mr. Gokhale, in the document published in the Blue-book, a document which contained far-reaching proposals, did not include a proposal for getting rid of the official majorities. I will not dwell, be-
288
cause it is not necessary to do so, on the evidence given to your Lordships during the course of this debate by noble Lords who have held high office in India and who have certainly put forward some considerations to show why these steps should riot be taken. Our fear with regard to these proposals is that they will have the effect of exposing the Governments, when once the official majority has disappeared, to a series of slaps in the face, and some of us who think we know something about Indian affairs do not believe that it is a good thing that any Government, whether the Imperial Government or the Provincial Governments, should be liable to rebuffs of that kind.
The noble Viscount has not adduced in any arguments to show that our apprehensions are ill-founded, and I confess I think it questionable whether we might not have asked the House to consider the propriety of substituting for the numbers in the schedule of the Bill other numbers of smaller dimensions. But these schemes under which a particular number of members is assigned to each of the Councils have no doubt been carefully thought out, and if we were to attempt to touch the numbers in the schedule the noble Viscount might very fairly turn upon us and ask if we had an alternative scheme. I will not pause to enquire whether it is very likely that any alternative scheme would be accepted by the noble Viscount. Although, therefore, we feel it our duty to place on record our misgivings upon these two points, I, for one, would not encourage your Lordships to propose to amend the schedule by putting in other numbers, and as we are not prepared to offer a substantive proposal to the Committee upon this point, it may, perhaps, be desirable that we should proceed to another Clause of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI want to say one single word in reply to what the noble Marquess has said about my taunting the noble Lord opposite, Lord Curzon. I think I particularly said that I did not taunt him. The treatment of the Bill by the noble Lords opposite has been so entirely serious and considerate, so generously recognising the enormous responsibility that weighs upon the Government and upon the Minister concerned, that I should be the most graceless of men if I had thrown out any taunt of the kind, But my point was that his powerful

289
argument about the official majority really got its power from the assumption that the Bill was unsound in principle.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy argument derived such power as it possessed from the Despatch of the Government of India, with which I was in entire agreement.
On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORDmoved an Amendment to provide that not two, but all, the ordinary members of the Executive Councils of Madras and Bombay should be persons who at the time of their appointment should have been in the service of the Crown in India or of a native State for at least twelve years. The Executive Council of a Presidency was, he said, the supreme administrative agency; it controlled and directed the whole administration of the Presidency, and the appointments to the Council had been hitherto considered of such a vital character that no person bad been chosen without long experience of the work and without being a man of eminence and remarkable for prudence. He understood that there was no intention to alter the character of the work performed by these Executive Councils, though it would be more distributed than at present. It was most essential that members should come to the work of the Council with that knowledge which could only be acquired by experience. These appointments must be given either as the spoil of politics or from the point of view of the interests of the millions committed to our charge. It seemed to him that there could be no doubt as to the choice, and he hoped the choice would be made in the way he desired.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 9, after the word 'direct' to insert the word `all,' and to leave out the words `two at least.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI am sure the noble Lord will see that his Amendment would do what is really fatal. It would put a limitation upon the choice of ordinary members. For example, a Judge, however eminent, if he had not served twelve years would be disqualified
290
under this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Reay the other evening described a gentleman, well known to himself and whom everybody would accept as well fitted to be a member of one of these Councils; but the noble Lord's Amendment would exclude that gentleman. I do not know why my noble friend should assume that a Governor-General or a Governor of Bombay would recommend to the Secretary of State an intriguing politician. Why take this pessimistic view? Personally, I would like to see upon the Councils of Bombay and Madras an Anglo-Indian who was not an official at all. I think the work of the Executive Councils would be greatly benefited by having almost constantly the advice of a civilian. It would infuse a new element into these councils. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD REAYhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. If it were carried very important sections of the community would be excluded, and as the noble Viscount had pointed out, the selection would be unduly restricted. The Amendment would exclude such a gentleman as the founder of the Scientific Research Institution in Bangalore—the late Mr. Tata—who, in his (the noble Lord's) time, was one of the most distinguished representatives of the commercial and industrial activity of Bombay. He would have brought into the council a new and useful element. His advice on financial questions on the subject of technical education, which was then under consideration, on juvenile labour in factories, on Customs duties, on Excise would have been most valuable. He therefore deprecated putting a limitation upon the choice of these new members. He agreed with Lord Harris as to the importance of the revenue element, but did not think there was the slightest risk under the enlarged councils of the revenue element not being fully considered. At the present moment the two members of the Governor of Bombay's Council were both taken from the revenue side. The Governor would be fully justified in submitting the name of a gentleman taken from the Bench or the Bar to strengthen his Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEWe were not able to catch the whole of the noble Viscount's argument in reply to the

291
noble Lord on the back bench. This clause does seem to some of us objectionable upon a ground which, I think, was mentioned the other evening in debate—that under the clause as it stands the head of the Presidential Government may find himself in this position. He may find himself with two members with official training on one side of him, and two members without any official training, and possibly both of them natives, on the other. That might place the Governor of the Province in an invidious and awkward position. If, however, the noble Viscount does not see his way clear to accept the Amendment, I do not think we need press it from this side. But I would like to ask whether he would see any objection to agreeing, instead of saying of whom two at least, to say of whom three at least shall be persons who have been in the service of the Crown, leaving only one without official experience.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNMy own intention is, if the Bill is passed, only to appoint three members; but this would, perhaps, be better discussed upon Lord Wenlock's Amendment to leave out the clause. I should contemplate an Executive Council of three, of whom I hope one would be an Indian. It would be my intention to appoint an Indian.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEDoes the noble Viscount agree to the substitution of three for two?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNNo. I think it would be better to leave it as it is, and see how it works.
LORD WENLOCKthen moved to omit from the Bill Clause 2, which ran:—
"2.—(1) The number of ordinary members of the councils of the Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay shall be such number not exceeding four as the Secretary of State in Council may from time to time direct, of whom two at least shall be persons who at the time of their appointment have been in the service of the Crown in India for at least twelve years.
"(2) If at any meeting of either such council there is an equality of votes on any question, the Governor or other person presiding shall have two votes or the casting vote."
He hoped he had made clear, in the few remarks he had addressed to their Lordships earlier in the evening, his object in moving this Amendment. He deprecated
292
legislating on these lines in a hurry, and thought their Lordships should wait to see what those out in India thought of the proposal. He hoped, therefore, the Government would consent to postpone the passing of this clause.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 2."—(Lord Wenlock.)
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Marquess the other night made a strong point of bringing up this proposal in the form of a separate Bill to be introduced at some later time. Your Lordships will recollect that this proposal comes from the Government of India—paragraph 76 of the Government of India's Despatch. Noble Lords will observe that the clause is purely permissive. If the Government of India and the Secretary of State do not desire to extend, there is nothing in the Bill that makes it obligatory on them to do so. I would like to point out a rather remarkable discovery that has been made. I am advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that His Majesty already has power without this Bill to add a third member to the Executive Councils of Bombay and Madras respectively, and such third member need not possess the qualification of twelve years service of the Crown. Therefore, there is nothing to hinder the Secretary of State from adding a third member to either of these Councils to-morrow. But I am well content that it should come before your Lordships for consideration. The Government of India, in the seventy-sixth paragraph, says that experience will probably test this. In other parts of the Despatch they express the opinion that the work thrown upon the Governors will be so heavy that they will need the aid and support of another member. Lots of difficulties may occur in consequence, such as those the noble Marquess pointed out in connection with the Amendment of Lord MacDonnell, but those have to be faced. There is no reluctance on the part of the Government of India to accept this proposal, in spite of experience and so forth not being yet ripe or even begun. It is, however, a work of supererogation really to put in the clause, but it would be fatal now if Parliament, having been consulted, did not accept the proposal for the Council being raised to four if thought necessary.

293
As I have said, my own intention is not to augment it beyond three, but we thought it better to take power for another member who some day may be needed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe noble Viscount has a happy knack of opening masked batteries upon the House. He opened one not many minutes ago when he produced from his pocket a more or less private telegram from the Government of India, upon which he relied to support one of his arguments; and now he has opened another masked battery by quoting an opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which goes to show that the clause under discussion, or part of it, need not have been inserted in the Bill at all. The noble Viscount was kind enough to give your Lordships the opportunity of discussing the subject; but, whatever our conclusions may be, he is in a position to give effect to his opinion whether we approve of it or not. We may have what opinion we may think proper as to the appointment of these new members of the Executive Council; but the noble Viscount tells us that the Law Officers advise him that it is open to him to appoint them without legislation. In these circumstances the discussion becomes—if I may borrow a phrase of the noble Viscount—rather of a farcical description.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNThe Law Officers do not say that we have power for four.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEAt any rate, there is, we are assured, power to do a great part of what the noble Viscount desires. The noble Viscount rests his case mainly, I understand, on the views of the Government of India as stated in the seventy-sixth paragraph of their Despatch of October last; but the noble Viscount must be aware that the Government of India go out of their way in that Despatch to tell the India Office that, in their opinion, we should wait for further experience of these new Legislative Councils and of the amount of extra work which their existence may occasion to the Executive Government—that we should wait until that experience has been acquired before we make these important innovations. The words are clear and unambiguous. Lord Minto's Government say—
"It may be that experience will show the desirability of strengthening the hands of the
294
Lieutenant-Governors in the larger provinces by the creation of Executive Councils, and assisting the Governors of Madras and Bombay by enlarging the councils which now exist in those Presidencies .... But it would be premature to discuss these contingencies until experience has been gained of the working of the new legislative bodies."
But the noble Viscount will not wait until he has gained experience of the working of the new legislative bodies. He proposes to legislate immediately. It was in those circumstances that I ventured to suggest to the noble Viscount, not really in any hostile spirit, that it might be worth while to postpone these clauses and deal with them in a separate Bill after he has obtained from the Government of India a report as to the manner in which the proposal is regarded by the higher local authorities in India. As far as the documents on the Table are concerned, there is nothing to show that there has been that consultation which Lord Minto's Government evidently considered desirable. Indeed, it is all the other way, because such evidence as we do possess goes to show that the higher authorities in India, including the Viceroy's Council, at no very remote date looked askance upon the proposals to tamper with the Executive Councils. Therefore, it does seem to me that my noble friend Lord Wenlock is not unreasonable when he makes to the noble Viscount the suggestion that this matter might be allowed to stand over for the present. The Bill would then deal as the Act of 1892 dealt with the Legislative Councils, leaving the other part of the question, the Executive Councils, which are really separate and distinct, to be dealt with hereafter, when the noble Viscount himself and Parliament generally have had a fuller opportunity of weighing the different considerations which bear upon the question.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON)pointed out that the clause was not compulsory, but entirely permissive. Having the opportunity now of dealing with the Indian problem, it would be unwise to leave an opening for another Bill and not to dispose of the matter now as far as they could.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEWill the noble Viscount give the Committee some kind of assurance that no immediate action will be taken under this clause until the kind of consultation which the Govern-

295
ment of India contemplated and desired has been had, and until a little more is known on the subject than we know at present?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI can assure the noble Marquess that no action will be taken under the clause without full consultation with the Government of India—I would almost say without their assent, but I ought not to say that, because it is the Secretary of State who makes these appointments, and I do not think I ought to debar myself from using powers that I possess. But my noble friend may take it from me that I have no desire to act precipitately.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORDmoved to omit Clause 3, which ran as follows:
3.—(1) It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, by proclamation, to create a council in any province under a Lieutenant-Governor for the purpose of assisting the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive government of the province, and by such proclamation—
(a) To determine what powers and duties of the Lieutenant-Governor shall be exercised and performed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and what shall be the number (not exceeding four), qualifications, powers, and duties of the members of any such council; and
(b) To make provision for the appointment of temporary or acting members of the council during the absence of any member from illness or otherwise, and for the procedure to be adopted in case of a difference of opinion between a Lieutenant-Governor and his council, and in the case of equality of votes, and in the case of a Lieutenant-Governor being obliged to absent himself from his council from indisposition or any other cause.
(2) Every member of any such council shall be appointed by the Governor-General with the approval of His Majesty, and shall, as such, be a member of the Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor in addition to the members nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor and elected under the provisions of this Act.
He feared that the discussion which had just taken place had somewhat prejudiced the chances of success of his Amendment. He was not impressed by the statement of the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council that safety lay in the fact that the clause was permissive. His
296
feeling was that if this clause obtained a place upon the Statute Book the pressure brought by politicians in India and England would be such as to force the hands of the Government and deprive them of freedom of action. He agreed to the proposal to add additional members to the Councils of Madras and Bombay, because he thought that in those Councils the experiment could be safely made. The circumstances in which we were placed rendered it impossible to remain quiescent. A forward movement of some sort must be made. Inasmuch as participation in the executive work of the Government was desired by the most prominent representatives of educated Indian society, he thought the best way of complying with their desires was to allow an experiment to be made in the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay. But in regard to the creation of Executive Councils for Lieutenant-Governors a different set of considerations arose. In this matter, the persistent opinion of Indian administrators from 1868 to the present time was that it was very much better, having regard to the necessity of close touch with native populations, to retain the system of Lieutenant-Governors in preference to the system of government by council. There was only one part of India in which a considerable body of opinion prevailed as to the wisdom of that decision, and that was in regard to the Lower Province of Bengal. But he did not now propose to touch upon that. The question now for them to decide was whether they would have corporate government, whereby the Executive Government was weakened, or personal government, whereby the Executive Government was strengthened. He supposed no one would maintain that it was desirable to introduce the tedious and procrastinating system of government by council in Burma, a country which, even in recent memory, had been the scene of sanguinary wars. In the United Provinces, the country with which he was most recently acquainted, he considered that that system of government was wholly unfitted to the circumstances of the locality. In those Provinces the tradition of personal rule and the recollections of recent war were so strong that no person of importance in those provinces would understand what was meant by divesting the Lieutenant-Governor of personal rule. In those provinces, inhabited as they were by martial, but, he was glad to say, loyal races, the forces of disorder were very near the I surface. He might mention a case, known

297
to Lord Curzon, where he had seen the entire structure of British rule disappear in a night, and when he reached the city the next morning he found a city full of sullen people on the one side and the entire British garrison under arms on the other. What would a Lieutenant-Governor do if he had to consult with his Council and waste time in debate in a case like that? It was not safe to entrust the fortunes of from 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 of people under these circumstances to the control and management of a Council. However useful a Council might be in the more settled portions of the country, in those parts which were yet mindful of the effects of war the people had always looked, and would look for many a year to come, to the direct personal rule of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province. Our great difficulty in these parts of India was the protection of the vast mass of the people from oppression frequently brought to bear upon them. It would be impossible if a Council had to be consulted to give them the speedy remedy now afforded by the Lieutenant-Governor going on tour, entering the villages, making himself acquainted with their particular wants, and thus bringing ryots and landlords together and endeavouring in that way to effect a reconciliation. This was the ordinary work of a Lieutenant-Governor on tour, and if he had to manage these things through a Council his efficiency would be greatly reduced. In the two Bengals different considerations arose, but even there, as the province had been divided in two, there existed no reason arising from administrative efficiency, for the introduction of a council in either. There, so long as the province remained divided, he thought it would be unwise to break with a system which had served us so well in the past and which, though it might be distasteful to a small minority, was acceptable to the vast bulk of the people. This change in our system was demanded by a very small and microscopic part of our Indian fellow-subjects. Taking those who were educated in English and those who were educated in the vernacular, the total of those who demanded the change did not amount to more than four per cent. of the entire population. He was in hearty sympathy with the bulk of the scheme of the noble Viscount, but on this point, to which he attached great importance, he did feel that they were going a little too far.
298
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 3."—(Lord MacDonnell of Strinford.)
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter to eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, before your Lordships adjourned for dinner we had just listened to a powerful speech from Lord MacDonnell, who was for many years Lieutenant-Governor of one of the principal Provinces in India. Special weight, I think, attaches to what fell from the noble Lord on this question, because it is a matter of common knowledge, not only that his experience as a Lieutenant-Governor was unusually prolonged—it lasted for six years instead of the ordinary five—but that no Lieutenant-Governor, certainly in my time, established a greater reputation for administrative ability and command of all the problems of government. The noble Lord gave us his own personal opinion as to the proposal we are now discussing to add Executive Councils to the Lieutenant-Governorships of various Provinces, and I propose, in the few remarks that I shall address to your Lordships, to place before you the opinions of those who are, perhaps, if not equally qualified, at any rate nearly equally qualified, with the noble Lord to pronounce upon the matter.
Your Lordships' attention has been called to the remarkable words of the Government of India. It is necessary to draw attention to them again, because here they speak in language somewhat different from, and stronger than, the language they employed in respect of additions to the Executive Councils of the Governors of Bombay and Madras. In the case of this proposal for the creation of Executive Councils in the Provinces ruled by Lieuteant-Governors—an absolutely new proposal—they say that it would be—
"A large departure which could only be recommended after the fullest consideration, and after consultation with the heads of the Provinces concerned."
Our case on this side of the House is that, so far as we know, there has been no such full consideration, and, to the best of our knowledge, no consultation with the heads of the Provinces concerned.
When I addressed your Lordships the other day I spoke with some wonderment

299
as to the origin of this proposal. But since then the Secretary of State has presented to your Lordships the Report of the recent Royal Commission of Decentralisation in India. In that Blue-book, which contains some very startling proposals, but others which, I hope, will be of great use to the noble Viscount in carrying out his views with regard to the reform of Indian administration—in that document I came, much to my surprise, on this proposal. That body definitely recommend the creation of Executive Councils for Lieutenant-Governors. Without wishing to disparage that Royal Commission, I ask your Lordships to consider of whom it was composed. It contained two members who had never been in India, one of whom was the chairman; it contained two Bombay officials, who would, I think, be predisposed to a system with which they were familiar in their own Province; it contained not a single Lieutenant-Governor or representative of a Lieutenant-Governor.
The Royal Commission on Decentralisation allude in their Report to the well-known discussion in India in 1867, when the idea of a Governor-in-Council for Bengal was discussed. But they do not state the whole facts. They give us to understand that on the one side, in favour of a Governor-in-Council, were Sir Bartle Frere, Sir H. Maine, and Sir William Grey, while against it were the Viceroy (Sir John Lawrence), and Sir William Muir. But they were not the only ones against it. The Commission do not mention in their Report that the proposal was then rejected by four to three, the Viceroy having placed on record that—
"personal administration by a single head without a council is the best form of government for many parts of India, Bengal included."
Nor do the Commission mention the more recent and exhaustive discussion of the subject in India in 1905. Their Report contains the following astonishing paragraph—
"The Home Secretary to the Government of India declined, under instructions from that Government, to inform us as to more recent discussions, or to give his own views upon the question."
It may have been a prudent, but it was a somewhat prudish, act to refuse this information, since it is accessible to any one who cares to refer to the last Bluebook about the reconstitution of Bengal [Cd. 2,746, 1905]. There, on pages 8 to
300
11, will be found a full discussion of the question of attaching executive councils to Lieutenant-Governors undertaken by the Government of India only four years ago, and resulting, not in a divided opinion, as in 1867, but in a unanimous pronouncement against the change now proposed.
The arguments cover three or four pages of print, but there is only one passage that I think I need read—
"Here we arrive at what is, in our view, the crowning drawback of the system [of Executive Councils for Lieutenant-Governors]—namely, that what is best for a Province in India is not the rule of a Committee but the rule, or at least the responsibility in the last resort, of an individual. . . . The decisions of such a body carry less weight because their origin and sanction are obscure, and because they lack the personal touch which is an almost inseparable feature of strong government."
That was a unanimous Despatch from the Government of India. And by whom was it signed? It was signed by three eminent officers, one of whom was till his recent death a Lieutenant-Governor, and two of whom are so now. The first was Sir Denzil Ibbetson, the fine flower of the Civil Service and late Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, who, I remember, felt more strongly upon this than upon almost any subject of Indian administration. The two others were Sir J. P. Hewett, now Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces, and Sir E. N. Baker, now Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. We had then in the Government of India Sir E. Law, who, on the eve of leaving India after five years of strenuous and successful service as a member of the Viceroy's Council, recorded his opinion that—
"Administration by a Governor or Lieutenant-Governor with an Executive Council results in paralysis or worse of the governing authority. The ideal is an administrative head directly in touch with the people and in intimate relation with all their executive officers."
I submit that these views are entitled to considerably more weight than the pronouncement of a Commission not one of whose members had any experience of the work of an Indian Lieutenant-Governor, and some of whom had no knowledge of India at all. But the consensus of modern authority is not exhausted by the above survey. Since Lord Morley introduced his Bill this particular proposal has been unsparingly condemned by Sir C. Elliott, formerly Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, and by Sir C. Crosthwaite, formerly

301
Lieutenant-Governor of the North-West Provinces. We have heard the same view expressed by the noble Marquess who was for five years Viceroy of India. Therefore this change up to the present has not had the acknowledged support of a single ex-Lieutenant-Governor or a single ex-Viceroy. I regret that we have not had the advantage to-night of hearing the opinion of Lord Elgin, who has observed a silence on this Bill which I must say has filled me with some regret.
The situation, ominous as it was, has been rendered somewhat worse by what the Secretary of State told us to-night. He proposes to take power in this Bill to create these Councils, and I need hardly say that I am sure he will not upon this occasion shelter himself behind the defence that it is merely a permissive power, because it is certain that if you introduce into an Act of Parliament a clause to the effect that it shall be lawful to the Governor-General in Council to give Executive Councils to certain provinces, the Secretary of State who is responsible for that Bill is bound to do it, at any rate in the case of the most advanced Provinces. Otherwise, what is the point of introducing it in the Bill? The noble Viscount told us earlier in the evening that this is one of the reforms that are to be introduced by proclamation. In other words, if we were to allow this clause to remain in the Bill as it is with no further information at our disposal, all future opportunity of considering the matter would be lost. Thus it may come about that a change not advised by the Government of India, disapproved of, so far as I know, by the Government of India, opposed by every Lieutenant-Governor or ex-Lieutenant-Governor who has spoken or written on the matter, and likely to be introduced in a manner which will give us no opportunity of criticising it, may, if this Bill is accepted without amendment, be thrust upon the Houses of Parliament. I hope that if we appear critical or even hostile about this particular clause the noble Viscount will not bring against me or any of my friends the charge that we are, therefore, trying to wreck the Bill. He knows as well as anybody that we accept the general principle of the Bill; we even go further and are anxious to assist him, so far as we can, in passing it into law.
In his speech this afternoon the noble Viscount deprecated any idea of rushing
302
this matter. I submit that in this matter we are being absolutely rushed. We know nothing about this proposal except that the Government of India say that it is premature, that it ought only to be recommended after the fullest consideration and after consultation with the heads of the Provinces concerned. I hope the noble Viscount will see that it is not unreasonable on our part to urge for some further explanation, and, if that is not forthcoming, to ask for the postponement of this particular clause.
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONentirely agreed with what Lord Curzon had said with reference to his noble friend who had moved the Amendment. Lord MacDonnell's experience and statesmanship were well known and his judgment, of course, would have very great weight with any one at all familiar with Indian politics or Indian administration. But he ventured to say that Lord Curzon had misconceived the effect and intention of the clause altogether. The noble Lord had quoted the names of most distinguished Indian statesmen and administrators who in the past had entertained a very different view as to the proper method of administration. The present position was that they had advanced and were advancing in the development of the government of India. The step that was being taken to-day was a great step in advance, and the opening of a new chapter in the history of India. He was not blind to the fact that there were great risks. They had to face the facts, and there must be a change in the Government of India which would associate a larger section of the people of that country with the Administration. The argument of Lord Curzon was in favour of an autocracy as being the very best form of government.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON : No.
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that no doubt fifty years ago the very best form of Government was that of a single authority, having both military and financial power and also exercising great judicial functions. The theory on which this Bill was founded, on the other hand, was the association of the elective principle with the government of India. No one would be a stronger opponent than himself to the setting up of our Parliamentary institutions in India, but it was desirable to have behind the Administration of

303
India a greater popular force than that behind it at the present moment. He would not be tempted to reopen the question of the partition of Bengal, or he might express the opinion that while the noble Lord's policy with reference to dealing with the Government of Bengal was, in the main, sound, he did not think the way in which that great reform was carried out was a right way. He would have thought than an adaptation of the Government of Bengal to what existed in Madras and Bombay would have been the better mode of carrying out what was a necessary administrative reform. But with regard to Madras and Bombay, the noble Lord would admit that government there with an Executive Council had worked efficiently.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONsaid he had never argued the question of Madras and Bombay, where Executive Councils had existed for many years. The position of Lieutenant-Governors was wholly different.
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid his answer to that was this. If Executive Councils had worked well in Madras and Bombay, why should they not work well in other Provinces?
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONOh, really!
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the Bill provided for the extension of the best mode of local government to other portions of India which did not possess it at present. If the Amendment were carried did they not think they would be opening another Indian question?
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONsaid this change had never been asked for.
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid it was impossible to carry on a duel across the Table. He might be wrong; but his own conviction was that if they introduced large changes into the local government of India, they could not have one description of government in one part and another description in another part. His belief was that there would be fresh agitation and unrest which it was most desirable to avoid. The wording of the clause was clear. It provided that it should be lawful for the Governor-General in Council with the approval of the Secretary of State in
304
Council, by proclamation, to create a Council in any Province under a Lieutenant-Governor for the purpose of assisting the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive government of the Province, and by such proclamation to determine what powers and duties of the Lieutenant-Governor should be exercised and performed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and what should be the number (not exceeding four), qualifications, powers, and duties of the members of any such Council. The English language was not capable of defining better what was to be an optional or discretionary power. There would be no compulsion, and the Government of India would exercise the power with discretion, wisely, and well. His noble friend Lord Curzon had stated that no member of the present Executive in India had approved of this scheme; but his noble friend the Secretary of State would be able to give the noble Lord the authority of an existing Lieutenant-Governor in favour of this change. It was certainly not the unanimous opinion in India that this change would be a doubtful one to make. The position of the Secretary of State, clothed with these powers, would be this, that he would proceed cautiously in the matter, take the opinion of men on the spot, and not rush into it as if it were a thing finally settled. He would be very sorry to see this provisional power taken away from the Secretary of State. He felt strongly that if the change were brought into operation it would, with the wisdom which would characterise the Government in India and the Secretary of State's Council at home, effect a great improvement in the administration of India and would not be a step that Parliament would regret having taken. He hoped the Committee would not strike out the clause altogether.
LORD AMPTHILLdid not altogether share the apprehensions expressed by Lord Curzon, particularly as under the wording of the clause the initiative rested with the Government of India. The clause commenced—
"It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council—"
and he thought it followed from that wording that nothing could be done unless those principally concerned and those who would be chiefly responsible for carrying out the change in India were agreed upon the subject. But his chief object in rising

305
was to say something in regard to the arguments used by the noble Lord who had moved the omission of the clause. He could not allow them to pass unchallenged, because they constituted a very serious criticism upon, and disparagement of, the system of Government in Madras and Bombay. The noble Lord's argument, in its crudest form, was that personal government was stronger and that corporate government was weaker. He denied the truth of that argument, and pointed out that if it were a sound argument it must also apply to the Government of India itself, which was that of a Governor-General in Council. Lord MacDonnell had spoken of government by council as a "tedious and procrastinating system." The noble Lord had had a lengthy experience of the Lieutenant-Governorship system, but could not claim the same experience of government in Council; and he (Lord Ampthill) indignantly denied that there was anything tedious or procrastinating about the system of government in Council. If government in Council were tedious and procrastinating so must also be the government of India under the Viceroy; and he doubted very much whether Lord Curzon, although he supported the argument, would admit for one moment that the government of India, under either his own direction or under that of his eminent predecessors, was open to that charge. Nor could he (Lord Ampthill) agree that government by a Lieutenant-Governor was personal government, while that of a Governor in Council was not. The personality of the Viceroy or Governor was not in the slightest degree minimised or obliterated by the existence of a Council. Every noble Lord in that House knew how the remarkable regime of his noble friend was spoken of in India. It was always referred to as the Government of Lord Curzon. Similarly, his noble friends Lord Harris, Lord Wenlock, Lord Reay, and Lord Sandhurst impressed their personalities upon the governments over which they presided. The government of a Governor in Council was every bit as personal as that of a Lieutenant-Governor. Then, as regarded sudden decisions, the noble Lord opposite imagined that in a crisis it would be necessary at Madras or Bombay to summon a meeting of the Executive Council and have a debate. He presumed that the noble Lord imagined also that when some crisis arose on the North-west Frontier it was necessary for the Viceroy to summon a meeting
306
of his Council and discuss the situation. He could assure him that nothing of the kind took place. In the case of the Viceroy, it was a matter of almost weekly occurrence that important decisions had to be given without any reference whatever to the Council; and in the Presidency Governments it was certain that in any emergency the Governor would act without waiting to summon a meeting of his Council. He thought that where a Governor in Council would act on his own responsibility a Lieutenant-Governor would be more likely to refer first to headquarters; the very nature of his office made it natural that he should do so. It would be extremely inexpedient to omit the clause in view of the important step to which they were committed. The avowed object of enlarging the Executive Councils of Madras and Bombay was to give the possibility of appointing Indians. If their Lordships omitted this clause they would be telling the people of the rest of India that they were not going to have any opportunity of sharing this privilege. The clause was not mandatory but permissive, and the initiative was to be entirely in the hands of the Government of India. Therefore, personally, he had no hesitation in supporting the retention of the clause.
THE EARL OF CROMERdid not propose to deal with the merits of the case or desire to oppose the clause. But he wished to make an earnest appeal to the noble Viscount not to proceed with the clause at once. The noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council had admitted that there were manifest risks in carrying out this project. They all agreed that there must be large risks. In his speech on the Second Reading he had put it in this form, that they were making a leap in the dark. The question was how far were they to leap at once. If a house were on fire it might be wise to jump out of the window if one were on the first floor, but if on the sixth storey it would be better, perhaps, to wait for a fire escape. It was a question of the degree of risk, and before taking this risk he would like to know what the authorities in India thought of the proposal. Their Lordships had no evidence before them in an official form as to the opinion of the present authorities in India on the subject, and that information should be obtained before a decision was pronounced. The Lord President had referred to the clause as being permissive. If it were not

307
to be acted upon, what was the use of its insertion in the Bill? But, even if there were no present intention of acting upon it, when once the Bill was passed what guarantee was there that it would not be acted upon at some future time? They might have a Secretary of State who would not possess the strength of the noble Viscount opposite, and they knew what would happen when the Bill had once been passed. The members of Congress would put strong pressure on their friends in another place. Pressure might, in turn, be placed upon the Secretary of State, who might, perhaps, yield too hurriedly; and therefore before agreeing to the placing of such an important provision on the Statute-book Parliament should be in full possession of the views of the authorities on the spot. It did not at all follow that if the clause were delayed it could not be passed this session. Why could not the noble Viscount consult the Government of India, and, if the clause were thrown out now, lay Papers before Parliament, when possibly it could be reconsidered? He did not wish to wreck the Bill, but thought their Lordships would be incurring a grave responsibility in giving these powers without knowing the opinions of the Government of India and the local authorities. As one who greatly sympathised with the noble Viscount, he would make an earnest appeal to him to meet their views on this particular point.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNThere is nothing that would be more agreeable to me than to meet the view of my noble friend; but let us see what it comes to. My noble friend desires to know the opinions of the Government of India and of the Lieutenant-Governors and so on. I put it to the two noble Lords opposite who have been Viceroys of India whether they are going to put on record in a Parliamentary Paper the opinions of this or that Lieutenant-Governor for or against this or that change, but especially against. How unpleasant, how weakening to the authority of a Lieutenant-Governor it would be to have it placed on record that he could not find any Indian gentleman to put on his Council, or that he did not want a Council, but preferred his own personal rule—how indiscreet it would be to have his opinion placed before the two Houses of Parliament. I submit that that is the answer to that part of my noble friend's question. He begs us to postpone this clause. Do the Committee
308
realise how we stand, and why we have taken this great task in hand at all? It is because there is a condition of things in India admitted by everybody—not denied by noble Lords opposite who know India so well—that demands dealing with without delay. Are you going to deal with a grave and serious situation of this kind piecemeal? When the Minister responsible for India tells Parliament that they are confronted with rather a serious situation, and when the Government of India, as shown in Lord Minto's early Despatch, say things of the same kind, are you going to face that situation seriously and firmly and completely, or are you not? Is it worth while to delay and have another India Bill, with prolonged debates and I know not what, India in the meantime tossing it all about, arguing it and saying "We always told you that Parliament was not up to this!" Lord Curzon said we might bring in another Bill this session. There is another place, and my opinion is that that other place will be greatly occupied, and I only trust to my own good fortune and some firmness in getting this Bill through before the dog-days. I hope to get it through immediately by using all the influence I can with my colleagues to press it forward. How should we look if this House, for example, which has discussed this Bill, if I may say so, with great authority, knowledge, and good temper, broke off and left a ragged edge? Lord Curzon questioned whether there was any Lieutenant-Governor who supported the proposal. In reply I will give him the name of one. The Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal is strongly for it, and is confident that he could find fit and capable men to man such a council.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONHe signed the Despatch that I quoted.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI know; but still there it is. There are Lieutenant-Governors who doubt whether they could get men, and so forth. I do not wish to deceive the House for a moment. There are Lieutenant-Governors who doubt it, to be sure, but the Government of India, and especially we who are not Lieutenant-Governors but who have to look at the Indian situation as a whole, are bound to make up our minds; and I am perfectly certain that there is not a man in this House who would have been more determined to make up his own mind upon a

309
point like this than the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, unless it may be the noble Marquess who preceded him in the Government of India. Your Lordships acknowledge that they are to have Legislative Councils, and if you postpone or delay, or allow this business to drag on, the tension might easily return. If this Bill is dealt with either here or in another place—I am sure it will not be here—in such a way as as to make it a failure or a wreck, those responsible will take an enormous responsibility, and if your Lordships to-night play with any part of the Bill, you will be setting, if I may say so, a very evil example. As for the arguments of the noble Lord, they are good, sound, bureaucratic arguments; but it is the bureaucratic system that we are going to make a breach in, and this is one portion of the operation. I therefore hope the Committee will allow the clause to stand.
LORD MAcDONNELL OF SWINFORDsaid he believed the rules of the House permitted him to make a few remarks in reply to what had been said. He did not propose to follow Lord Ampthill, except to say that the noble Lord's conception of the duties and status of a Lieutenant-Governor left something to be desired. In regard to the appeal which had been made by the Lord President that their Lordships should pass the clause and trust to the Secretary of State for India carrying it out under the orders of Parliament, he would ask their Lordships to consider what influence the view of Parliament had upon the noble Viscount in regard to the appointment of the member of the Viceroy's Council. He supposed that if this Bill were passed and the Secretary of State of the day held the same views as to appointments as the noble Viscount the present Secretary of State held as to the Viceroy's Council, the same regard would be paid to the opinion of that House in reference to the creation of Councils for Lieutenant-Governors as was being paid to it in regard to a member of the Viceroy's Council. In regard to the argument that they might create turmoil and tension in India by the rejection of this clause, he would remind the Committee that the most advanced section of Indian politicians had never asked for the clause. He had endeavoured, on the occasion of the Second Reading, to trace the progress of Indian claims for political privileges from the time of their origin in 1885, during the Viceroyalty of Lord Dufferin, up to the time
310
that they reached the point when the National Congress were brought face to face with what he might call the Indian Terror. In none of their resolutions was there any claim made for the appointment of Executive Councils for Lieutenant-Governors. That proposal, as Lord Curzon had said, was first raised in a tentative and very doubtful way in the Despatch of the Government of India at the beginning of October last. It was taken up in the Despatch of the noble Viscount, and it there assumed the appearance of reality. They were now told that if this proposal, which had never been asked for by the most advanced Indian politicians, and which was in contradiction to the universal and continuous advice of the most careful and prudent of Indian administrators, were not granted that evening they might look out for difficulties in our Indian Empire. They would never do any good in India by being afraid. Things ought not to be done in a hurry. In the last resort they depended upon themselves, and if anything were done in a hurry or which tended to disintegrate the Indian Public Service then indeed the time had come to look for a liquidation of the Indian Empire. He did not look upon the present disturbances with apprehension. He thought they were largely due to the nervousness of the men on the spot, and it would be a fatal mistake to give to Lieutenant-Governors a Council for which they had not asked, which no Indian political party had demanded, and to do that before the Lieutenant-Governors were even asked their opinion. He was very sorry to have the appearance of differing from the noble Viscount, the great bulk of whose scheme had his entire approval. But, with regard to this clause, he honestly believed that if their Lordships conceded the point asked for they would be seriously affecting the safety of the Empire. He therefore intended to press his Amendment to a Division.
THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, I need not inform the House that I am really not competent to enter into the details of this particular discussion, but one observation which fell from the noble Lord who has just sat down seems to me to call for some comment. The noble Lord said that this particular proposal had never been invited or asked for by the extreme advanced section in India. I am inclined to say, what of that? This Bill, as I understand it, is not framed to meet

311
the desires or aspirations of the very extreme politicians of whom the noble Lord speaks as the advanced section. The proposals of the Bill must surely be considered on their merits, with a view to the acceptance they receive from the moderate and rational section of Indian opinion, and I should have thought that the fact that the extreme section had never asked for this reform would, in your Lordships' eyes, have been regarded as a recommendation for the proposal. Therefore, I confess I am entirely unable to follow the noble Lord's arguments on that point. As regards the general merits of the proposal, I should only say this, speaking, of course, without any local or technical knowledge. Your Lordships have agreed to give further considerable powers of self-government in the Presidencies, and it certainly does strike one, speaking from the point of view of general politics rather than from the point of view of one who is competent to judge of India, that the effect of denying or of delaying for long similar privileges to the Provinces must accentuate the difference between the two conditions. I should ask your Lordships, therefore, to pause before you, instead of rounding off this measure, leave what the noble Viscount has called a ragged edge, with almost a certainty of continued agitation for what appears to one who looks upon it, as I do, to be in itself a moderate measure of reform.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, after the long discussion which has taken place, I am not going to enter into a dissertation as to the respective merits of government by a Lieutenant-Governor without an Executive Council and by a Governor with an Executive Council. Each system has its own merits. But what we are asked to do this evening is to assent to a clause under which the Secretary of State will be given the power to create in those Indian Provinces where the system of government by a Governor in Council is unknown a new system under which for the first time Executive Councils will be created.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNThe initiative being with the Government of India.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEOn the initiative of the Government of India, with the sanction of the Secretary of State
312
for India. That is a very serious innovation, and our point on this side of the House is that we have not been supplied with any sufficient information as to the reasons for which this change is desired. An immense weight of authority has been cited by my noble friend behind me against the proposal. I will not travel again over that ground; the names which he cited are well known to all who are intimate with Indian affairs, and no one will be bold enough to contend that the authority of those high officials is an authority which can be lightly brushed aside. Then we know that this formed no part of the request put forward in October last by the Government of India; it was put forward merely as a suggestion to be hereafter considered. But, besides that, is there any evidence to show that a change of this kind really is desired generally by the people of India, if you can, indeed, speak of the people of India? The noble Earl who leads the House took exception to the statement made from these Benches that no demand of that kind had been put forward by the National Congress. Now, we know perfectly well that the demands of the National Congress represent the highwater mark of Indian pretensions, and if we find that this demand is not included among the pretensions of the National Congress, we are, I think, justified in holding that in the view of those sections of the Indian public which are most interested this particular change has not appeared to enter into the region of practical politics. The noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council dwelt at some length upon the fact that this was merely an enabling or permissive clause. So it is; but surely we are not to be told that these clauses are put into the Bill merely as a sort of shop-front decoration, not to be turned to account. The remark seemed to me to be a little inconsistent with another remark which fell from the noble Viscount, that this clause opened a fresh chapter of Indian history.
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONThe noble Marquess misunderstood what I said. I was referring to the Bill, and was quoting the remark of my noble friend the Secretary of State.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI entirely accept that. I agree that the Bill does open a new chapter, and I maintain that this is not an essential feature of the Bill. I draw a great distinction between

313
this clause and the rest of the Bill, between this clause which deals with the creation of new Executive Councils and the immediately preceding clause which deals with certain changes in those Executive Councils which already exist. What is it we ask for? We do not, as the noble Viscount seems to think, want to wreck the Bill. We do not even want to wreck this clause. All we say is, let the noble Viscount hold his clause back, and, if the clause were to disappear this evening and in the meantime the noble Viscount were able to collect a great mass of that information which he has not yet been able to produce, we might regard the clause in a different light. The noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council told us that the object of this clause was to associate the people of India more closely with the government of that country, and he seemed to think that the disappearance of the clause would rob the Bill of that salutary effect. But, my Lords, this is only a small fraction of the proposal. The manner in which the people of India will be brought into closer contact with the government of the Indian Provinces is by the extension of the Legislative Councils. The creation of new Executive Councils is a wholly different matter, and I do not think it deserves to be described as a proposal eminently calculated to associate the people of India with the government of India, or with any part of it. Earlier in the debate, a reference was made to the Report of the Royal Commission on Decentralisation. This matter of Executive Councils is referred to in the Report of the Royal Commission, which is one of the most recent pieces of evidence in our hands. Now, what has the Royal Commission got to say upon it? They tell us that, in their opinion, a good deal is to be said for doing away with the system of what they call single Lieutenant-Governorships. But what is their proposal? They say that it would be highly undesirable to have a civilian Lieutenant-Governor with a Council attached to him, and they say that if the thing is to be done the proper way to
314
do it is by appointing a Governor from home and then giving him a Council. That is a wholly different proposal, and one against which a great deal is to be said. It seems to me an objectionable proposal, because it would have the effect of robbing the Indian Service of some of the few great prizes open to it. But that is the proposal of the Decentralisation Commission—not a Lieutenant-Governor with a Council, but a Governor, as a rule exported from home, with a Council, and that is not the proposal which has been adopted by His Majesty's Government. We are told that among the points still being considered by the Government of India was that of the powers to be given to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Well, if they are still considering this point, the point which certainly arises under this clause, why are we accused of being unreasonable in asking that this proposal may, for the present, at any rate, be held over? If my noble friend opposite takes the sense of the Committee I shall vote with him on that understanding, not that I wish to proclaim unalloyed hostility to the proposal, but that at present I am not prepared to accept it upon the ground that, on the one hand, there is immense weight of authority against it, and, that on the other hand, a very slight amount of authority has been produced in favour of it.
LORD SANDHURSTsaid that if his noble friend the Secretary of State still refused to accept the Amendment he would be compelled to vote against him, because he did not believe that at the present time, at any rate, these Provinces were ripe for the scheme proposed. Reference had been made to this being a permissive clause. If it were merely permissive, he failed to see why there should be so much hurry.
On Question, whether the clause proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 18; Not-contents, 59.

INDIAN COUNCILS BILL. [H.L.]

  CONTENTS.
  Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Morley of Blackburn, V.

  Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

  Herschell, L.

  Allendale, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Ampthill, L.

  Pentland, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Armitstead, L.

  Reay, L.

  Chichester E.

  Blyth, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  CONTENTS.

    NOT-CONTENTS.
    Bedford, D.

    Westmeath, E.

    Lawrence, L.

    Wellington, D.

    Wicklow, E.

    Leith of Fyvie, L.

    MacDonnell, L. [Teller.]

    Ailesbury, M.

    Bath, M.

    Falkland, V.

    Monk Bretton, L.

    Bristol, M.

    Falmouth, V.

    Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

    Lansdowne, M.

    Goschen, V.

    Saltoun, L.

    Hood, V.

    Sanderson, L.

    Camperdown, E.

    Iveagh, V.

    Sandhurst, L.

    Carlisle, E.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    Cathcart, E.

    Basing, L.

    Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

    Cawdor, E.

    Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne)

    Sinclair, L.

    Cromer, E.

    Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

    Stanmore, L.

    Devon, E.

    Cheylesmore, L.

    Stewart of Garlies. (E.Galloway.)

    Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)

    Clinton, L.

    Templemore, L.

    Cottesloe, L.

    Trevor, L.

    Fortescue, E.

    Curzon of Kedleston, L.

    Vivian, L.

    Lovelace, E.

    Ellenborough, L.

    Waleran, L.

    Lytton, E.

    Estcourt, L.

    Wenlock, L. [Teller.]

    Onslow, E.

    Harris, L.

    Willoughby de Broke, L.

    Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

    Hindlip, L.

    Wynford, L.

    Waldegrave, E.

    Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

    Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

    Amendment agreed to accordingly.
    Clause 4 agreed to.
    Clause 5:
    LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONOn this clause, may I ask the noble Viscount a question? I understand that the clause provides for the rules which will authorise the discussion of the annual financial statement of the Governor-General in Council and of the local Governments, as the case may be, and of any matter of general public interest, and also the putting of questions. I understood the noble Viscount to say, in his opening speech to-night, that in the public interest the Viceroy may, without giving any reason, closure any supplementary question. I wish to ask if the same power will be vested in a Governor and Lieutenant-Governor, because it is in the Provincial Legislative Councils that the trouble is far more likely to arise.
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I quite understand that that will be so.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe present rule runs thus—
    "The President may disallow any question without any reason therefor, other than that, in his opinion, it cannot be answered consistently with the public interests, and in such a case the question shall not be entered in the Proceedings of the Council."
    I take it that the new rule will be virtually in accord with that?
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNThat is in the Viceroy's Council?
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE : Yes.
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI think that will go on.
    LORD HARRISMay we understand that the same rule as to the power of disallowing supplementary questions will apply in the Provincial, Councils?
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI suppose so.
    LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONIt is very important that we should be quite clear on the point of supplementary questions. I understood the noble Viscount to say that no discussion would be allowed in respect of any answer that might be delivered by an official to a question, but that the maximum power conceded to the interrogator would be that he might supplement his first question by a second, or possibly even a third, but that the supplementary question or questions might only be on questions of fact, and that whether they were on questions of fact or otherwise it would be within the power of the President to disallow them in the public interest, if he so desired. Is that a correct version of what the noble Viscount said?
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN : Yes.
    Clause 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6:
    LORD AMPTHILLmoved to amend this clause, which ran—
    "The Governor-General in Council shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, make regulations as to the conditions under which and manner in which persons resident in India may be nominated or elected as members of the Legislative Councils of the Governor-General, Governors, and Lieutenant-Governors, and as to the qualifications for being, and for being nominated or elected, a member of any such council and as to any other matter for which regulations are authorised to be made under this Act, and also as to the manner in which those regulations are to be carried into effect,"
    by inserting after the words "a member of any such Council," the words—
    "including the conditions under which and the manner in which persons otherwise qualified under the regulations shall be disqualified for being, and being nominated or elected a member of any such council."
    The addition of these words might seem, at first sight, superfluous or mere tautology, but he thought he could show that that was not the case. He was well aware that qualifications necessarily connoted disqualifications. If they declared that certain persons were qualified, they ipso facto excluded all others who were not so qualified and thus set up disqualifications; but he thought it was very important to emphasise the fact that there were to be positive disqualifications from being elected a member of one of the Legislative Councils. The noble Viscount had enumerated certain disqualifications of a very obvious and inevitable kind; but in regard to sedition mongers and persons who had been associated with anarchism in India the Secretary of State hesitated and refused to commit himself to a definite conclusion. The noble Viscount had said that to exclude definitely persons who had been engaged in political agitation of this kind would leave a ragged edge. His (Lord Ampthill's) view was that if they left a loophole for the election of any such persons to these Councils they would be creating a ragged edge and preventing the smooth perfection of the whole scheme. An idea was widely current in India that the surest road to official advancement or honorary distinction was abuse of the Government. We were responsible for the existence of that notion, and he thought that now was the opportunity of removing so mischievous an impression. The idea was due to a variety of causes. In the first place, it was due to the general scheme of education imposed upon the people of
    318
    India. Universities had been set up, and there had been chosen as a subject for the contemplation of undisciplined bands of young men in India the constitutional history of England. That history was generally a history of men who had been on the worst possible terms with the Government of the day. Students in India had not those moderating influences at hand which acted upon students in this country, and if they were brought up on the poetry of Milton, the history of Macaulay, the rhetoric of Burke, and the philosophy of Mill, we had only ourselves to thank if they turned that inaccurate history, that misleading rhetoric, and that entirely—to the East—inappropriate philosophy against ourselves. That system of education had undoubtedly produced the idea that agitation against the Government and abuse of constituted authority was the best road to prominence and distinction; and—
    THE EARL OF CREWE: I venture to think the noble Lord is travelling some way from his Amendment.
    LORD AMPTHILLsaid he was sorry the Leader of the House should inflict that rebuke upon him, but what he was trying to prove was that it was necessary to show that political agitation was not the road to advancement. That idea existed, and it was necessary to show that it was incorrect. The existence of the idea was also due to the constant example afforded by party politics in this country and to the mistaken generosity of the Government in India, which was inclined to apply English notions of political license to the different conditions of the East. On this account it was desirable to lay down marked disqualifications as well as the negative disqualifications which resulted from the existence of qualifications. The addition of the words in his Amendment did not in the slightest degree alter or affect the sense of the clause. They merely emphasised that which they knew it was the intention of the noble Viscount and of the Government of India to carry out.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 4, line 1, after the word 'council' to insert the words 'including the conditions under which and the manner in which persons otherwise qualified under the regulations shall be disqualified for being, and being nominated or elected a member of any such council.'"—(Lord Ampthill.)
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNI cannot think that anything would be gained by the addition of the proposed words; and may I say that I did not see, any more than the noble Earl behind me, the relevance of the noble Lord's references to the rhetoric of Burke, the poetry of Milton, and the philosophy of Mill. This is a matter of regulation. It is one of those regulations upon which, as I told the House at the beginning of our proceedings to-day, our minds are not made up. But I should not easily come to the conclusion—I say this frankly and in advance—that the fact of a man having one day or another taken a mischievous part in a political agitation, when he was young, perhaps, should act as a disqualification for ever for his sitting in a Legislative Council. I shall be very hard to convince upon it, but it is under discussion and we shall see.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I cannot help feeling some doubt whether the categories of disqualification which the noble Viscount gave to the House earlier in the evening will really prove to be a sufficient way of achieving the object we all have in view—namely, the exclusion from these Executive Councils of persons who really will not only add nothing to their efficiency but whose presence upon them will amount to something very like a scandal in the eyes of the people in India. I notice that at one point the disqualification extends very far indeed. A person, the noble Viscount told us, who has been dismissed from the service of the public is to be disqualified. I can quite conceive that a man may have got into a scrape early in life and lost his place in the Service, and subsequently, by many long years of good and honest work, retrieved his reputation: such a man might make a very useful member of Council. On the other hand, when the noble Viscount tells us that in his view it is extremely doubtful whether a person who has been deported under the Regulation of 1818 for being implicated in seditious practices should not be qualified for a place on a Council, I confess that there I part company from him. I greatly prefer the old system under which the elected members of Council were in the first place elected and then had their election confirmed by the head of the Government. That, I know, seems to the noble Viscount a very ridiculous arrangement, but I can assure him that it is one which has a very considerable
    320
    significance, because in the eyes of the public in India there is all the difference in the world between a member of Council who owes his place in Council simply to the fact that he has been elected by what the noble Viscount describes in the introduction to this Bill as the popular vote—there is all the difference in the world between a man who comes in with the popular vote behind him and nothing else, and the man who comes into Council having been elected by his neighbours or fellow countrymen but whose election has been sanctioned and approved by the Government. This arrangement enabled the Government with due discrimination, to exclude improper people from the Councils; I am afraid on the other hand that no scheme of categories, however elaborate, will be sufficient to prevent from time to time the preferment of men with very questionable antecedents, men whose admission to membership of the Legislative Councils will be looked upon with wondering eyes by many people in India, and will be very far, indeed, from conducing to the efficient conduct of the legislative business of the country.
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNIf I thought there was going to be a great return of these extreme and obnoxious characters I would have no more to do with the Bill. It is because I do not anticipate that that I am making these proposals. I submit to the noble Marquess that to ask the Government of India to frame categories of exclusion is a very delicate and difficult thing. I would far rather trust to the power of the Councils in the matter. Not so many years ago a member was returned to the House of Commons for an Irish constituency, and the House declared that he could not sit as he had not purged himself of certain serious offences. In the same way I take it that these Councils, with an authoritative president, would be able to exclude a thoroughly obnoxious person.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: How could they keep him out?
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: By by-laws, or other means. It might just as well be asked how did the House of Commons declare that the particular person to whom I have referred should not take his seat. I cannot imaging why this could

    321
    not be left to the discretion of the Councils. I can assure the noble Marquess that innumerable difficulties will present themselves by drawing up classes and sub-classes.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEIt is the noble Viscount who has been drawing up classes and sub-classes. My argument is that I do not like classes and sub-classes, and would very much prefer to go back to the old arrangement, under which, for sufficient cause, a particular individual elected by one of these constituencies could be refused by the head of the Government.
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURNBut even there you have difficulties, for you are leaving it to the caprice possibly of the head of the Government.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI would not leave it to the caprice of the head of the Government. I would allow the refusal of the head of the Government to be subject to the consideration of the Governor-General in Council, or, if the noble Viscount prefers it, of the Secretary of State.
    THE EARL OF CREWEMay I remind the Committee that the only question before us is the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, by which a positive form is to be given to certain unnamed disqualifications rather than leaving it in a purely negative form. The discussion seems to me to have wandered very far indeed from that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 6 agreed to.
    LORD AMPTHILLmoved to insert, after Clause 6, the following new clause—
    "Before any proclamation, rule, or regulation under this Act is made, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than sixty-five days during the session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft, proclamation, rule, or regulation."
    He said the clause embodied a suggestion he had ventured to make on the Second Reading. The noble Earl the Leader of the House said, at the conclusion of the debate on the Second Reading, that he
    322
    did not think the Secretary of State could accept this Amendment; he trusted that this was merely a cautious reservation of opinion and that the noble Viscount had meanwhile recognised that something of this kind was desirable. The object of the new clause was to reserve to Parliament the right of considering constitutional changes in the Government of India before they were actually carried out. The Bill had been described as a blank cheque; and, in fact, supposing Clause 3 were reinstated, it would enable the Governor-General in Council, subject merely to the approval of the Secretary of State, to alter the form of I government in any of the Provinces under Lieutenant-Governors—a great constitutional change. But, as it stood at present, the Bill enabled the Secretary of State, at his own discretion, to make changes of hardly less magnitude in the constitution of the Presidency Governments. Nobody could hold more strongly than he did the opinion that Parliament should not attempt to direct the details of administration in India, and he agreed most cordially with the principle by which the effective part of this Bill had been left to regulations in order to give the necessary elasticity and discretion to the men on the spot. But when it came to an actual constitutional change it was another matter, and Parliament should not part with the right of withholding final approval. It was for this reason that he thought any proclamation which might be made under Clause 3, supposing that clause to be eventually restored, and any rules and regulations made under Clauses 5 and 6, should be laid before Parliament in the manner suggested by ample custom and precedent. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, in his remarks on this subject, had suggested that Parliament should cut off its nose in order to spite its face; in other words, he would deprive the House of Commons of an undeniable right and an important duty in order that that right might not be exercised or that duty performed by their Lordships' House. He could not believe that the Secretary of State for India or His Majesty's Ministers as a whole would take this view, which he ventured to think was not only unsound from the point of view of Imperial statecraft but also obviously inconsistent with the principles of the democratic government of the Empire. He did not think there need be any fear of unnecessary or capricious use of this power by Parliament. Indian

    323
    questions were not, and never had been, made a subject of party politics in their Lordships' House; and there was the further consideration, put forward by Lord Crewe himself, that a great number of the men most competent to deal with these questions were members of that House. In each session of Parliament there were between fifty and 100 sets of rules and regulations laid for the appointed number of days in this manner on the Table, but during the past ten years only ten addresses to the Crown had been moved, and of that number only two were moved in their Lordships' House. As regarded the length of time which he suggested, sixty-five days, there were two considerations—first, the great distance of India and the time that communication took; and, secondly, the immense importance of the questions as compared with that of other questions treated in this way. He could also furnish ample precedent for a period as long as sixty-five days, and cited various Statutes with this object. His Amendment was designed solely to safeguard the elemental rights and responsibilities of the Imperial Parliament, and it was not likely, having regard to the traditional attitude of Parliament and the usage of both Houses, that any administrative inconvenience would result from the adoption of this course.
    Amendment moved:—
    "To insert, after Clause 6, the following new clause:
    7. Before any proclamation, rule, or regulation under this Act is made, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than sixty-five days during the Session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft, proclamation, rule, or regulation."—(Lord Ampthill )
    LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONI rise not entirely to support the noble Lord but to deliver a few observations on the subject of his Amendment. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State was kind enough to tell us earlier what would probably be the course of events followed with regard to filling up the blank cheque and making it operative in India. As I understand, there will be a series of regulations and a number of rules and proclamations, and the question is whether it is reasonable for us to ask the noble Viscount to let us see any of those regulations, rules, and
    324
    proclamations before they come into operation.
    In his speech to-night the noble Viscount divided them into three or four different classes. He told us, first, that a number of rules had already been settled, and that these rules related in particular to the numbers of the Councils, the quorum to be present, and the tenure of office; secondly, that there was a class of rules which had been settled in principle only but not in detail, and that these related to the discussion, for instance, of the Budget both at Calcutta and in the Provincial Councils; thirdly, that a discussion on general questions was proceeding between the Secretary of State and the Government of India; and, fourthly—and this is the point to which I invite the attention of your Lordships—that there was a large range of subjects not yet settled. We quite understand that. These are vital questions that it may well take time to decide.
    What are included in this range of subjects on which the Government of India and the noble Viscount have not yet made up their minds? First, there is the question of disqualifications. Is it possible to suggest, I will not say a compromise upon this matter, but a combination of the features of the system suggested by the Secretary of State and of that advocated by the noble Marquess behind me? The Secretary of State has sketched a category of very necessary and very obvious disqualifications, and I am sure we can trust the Government of India and the Secretary of State in combination to draw up a satisfactory category of this nature. But is there not very great force in the argument that fell from the noble Marquess—the argument that it is quite conceivable that persons may be returned to these Councils in the future who may be, not merely political agitators in the ordinary sense, but people who have dabbled in sedition even if they have not been actually convicted of crime? To this the noble Viscount replies that he has every confidence that that class of man will not be returned. I wish in all sincerity that I could share that confidence. I feel tolerably certain that as time advances places on these Councils will be the recognised reward of political agitation. It is sometimes a passport to the House of Commons for a man to have been engaged in a conflict with the Government and even to have been a guest

    325
    of His Majesty in prison. So also you may find in India that persons quite unfitted to sit upon these Councils will be returned. I admit the difficulty of framing a net which will catch persons of that sort.
    During the whole time, however, that I was in India I never heard any objection to the present rule giving the Governor-General power to decline to nominate any person who had been recommended for nomination; and so well did that rule act as a safeguard that I cannot recollect its being put into operation. I remember that there was once a possibility of a gentleman being returned to Council who would not have been accepted. Steps were taken to ascertain from me in advance what would be the attitude of the Governor-General in the matter, and as soon as it was known that the appointment was one which the Governor-General could not accept the nomination was not proceeded with. I submit as a suggestion to the noble Viscount whether it is not worth considering that side by side with the system of exclusions which he has outlined some such power should be reserved to the Governor-General as has hitherto been enjoyed by him without the slightest dispute or difficulty.
    Among the other subjects still unsettled is the entire system of nomination and election in the future. That is one of the most stupendous changes to be introduced by this Bill. As we all know, there is some apparent difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and the Government of India on the matter. The Government of India are opposed to any system of indirect election through colleges. At any rate, in their despatch they recommended a system of election through existing bodies or associations, supplemented, in cases where these bodies did not exist, by nomination by Government, but the noble Viscount would not have anything to say to that, and proposed a system of election by electoral colleges. He has not told us what has been the answer of the Government of India to his suggestions. I do not desire to press him upon that point to-night, but I submit that inasmuch as so many of the vital questions of this Bill, that which really fills in the framework of what we have been discussing to-night, have still to be settled by these rules and regulations, it is not unreasonable to ask that Parliament should have some opportunity, I do not say of delaying, but, at any rate, of considering these matters.
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Considering them after or before the rules are framed?
    LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONI will explain. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Ampthill) proposes that before any proclamation, rule, or regulation is made the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than sixty-five days during the session of Parliament, and then he suggests the contingency of either House presenting an Address to His Majesty. From what fell from the noble Viscount the other day, I think that is a course which he would not favour. I hold myself that it is in excess of the necessities of the case. All that we want is an opportunity of seeing these rules, regulations, and proclamations, and an opportunity in a perfectly friendly manner of discussing them across the floor of the House with the Secretary of State. The noble Viscount might, therefore, consider the question of agreeing to the Amendment down to the words "session of Parliament," substituting, if he wishes, forty for sixty-five days. The suggestion I submit is that the noble Viscount may, perhaps, be prepared to agree to the proposal that before any proclamation, rule, or regulation under this Bill is made—I mean before it comes into effect—the draft thereof shall be laid before each House or Parliament for a period of not less than forty days during the session of Parliament. The Secretary of State may ask what is the object of this. Our object would be to have an opportunity of discussion upon the matter, and, if thought desirable, of making representations to the Secretary of State. There is a great difference between what was done in 1892 and what is now proposed. You are now creating what is almost representative government, and it is not unreasonable to ask that when these great and vital changes are being made this House should have some idea of what is going on. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to meet us in the matter.
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Lord who has just spoken used very different language indeed in the proceedings on the Bill of 1892. He then said what I take to be the exact opposite of what he is now saying. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I urged upon the House the advice given by Mr. Glad-

    327
    stone in regard to an Amendment moved to the Indian Councils Bill of 1892. The noble Lord and I were then both in another place. A member on my side of the House and in the minority moved an Amendment. Mr. Gladstone rose and urged his supporter not to divide on the Amendment, and in doing so used this language—
    "The best course we could take would be to commend to the authorities of India what is a clear indication of the principles on which we desire them to proceed. It is not our business to devise machinery for the purpose of Indian Government."
    The noble Lord (then Mr. Curzon) said—
    "Speaking on behalf of the, Government, I entirely endorse that part of Mr. Gladstone's speech in which he said that it is not for this House to determine a plan or devise the machinery of an Indian Councils Bill, but that the initiative must be made by the Government of India."
    LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON : Hear, hear.
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Lord will, I know, draw a distinction between initiative and later proceedings. The point is the same. The point in 1892 was that it was only the Government of India who really could be satisfied as to the best technical details of machinery. On this occasion what is proposed is that before the Act comes into operation the two Houses of Parliament are to discuss and decide whether the regulations ought or ought not to come into effect.
    LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONI did not say that. I suggested that the Amendment should end at the words "session of Parliament."
    VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I was, perhaps, wrong in bringing my noble friend Lord Curzon into that. But the noble Lord who moved the Amendment asks that before any proclamation, rule, or regulation is made the draft shall be laid before each House of Parliament for sixty-five days—Heaven only knows why the period of sixty-five days is taken—and that if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon. The rules being made and the whole scheme being before Parliament for sixty-five days, suppose the House of Commons
    328
    were to pick holes in it and come to a conclusion dissenting from some of the rules, while the House of Lords approved the rules? What a situation for the Government of India! My view is to leave to the Government of India as much elastic power as possible, so that they may, should circumstances seem to demand it, alter any rule. But this provision would prevent such alteration, however necessary the alteration might prove to be. Nothing could be more hideously inconvenient for effective government in India. It would be inconvenient and unconstitutional. On the question of its being unconstitutional, I will quote the language—for we are really now on a great issue—used by the late Lord Salisbury in June, 1893. Lord Salisbury said—
    "I apprehend that the constitutional doctrine is this. The House of Commons has the absolute right of selecting a group of statesmen from whom an Executive is chosen, and it has the absolute right of dismissing those statesmen from office when it ceases to trust them; but it has not the right—
    this is what the noble Lord opposite is asking the House to assert—
    "to take the management and conduct of the Executive into its own. hands. The Executive Government so selected has, according to our constitution, the right and the duty of discharging the office of Executive and the prerogatives of the Crown."
    I should say that that doctrine was thoroughly sound. But under the noble Lord's Amendment the Government of India would be placed at the mercy of rival votes in the two Houses of Parliament. My view is that the regulations should come into force as soon as they have gone through the framing by the Government of India and received the approval of the Secretary of State, who is the representative of Parliament. I am quite willing to insert a new clause after Clause 6 in the following terms—
    "All proclamations, regulations, and rules made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made."
    There is no intention there to suspend their operation for one minute. The moment they have been passed in India and approved by the Secretary of State in Whitehall their operation ought to begin.
    VISCOUNT MIDLETONdid not think it would be difficult to show that the language of Lord Salisbury applied to a very different set of facts. One of the expressions used by

    329
    Lord Salisbury was the "management of the Executive." He did not think any question of that kind arose in the suggestion of Lord Curzon. If the constitution were founded on the principle that a group of gentlemen were chosen to carry out the administrative work of government and that having been chosen their acts were not to be interfered with or refuted by Parliament, how was it that in one out of every ten Acts at least there was included the very clause which Lord Ampthill had moved, with the object of giving Parliament an opportunity of considering before an order which had been drawn took effect, whether it should be brought into action? If the noble Viscount had said that India was on a different plane, and that Indian Government was of so peculiar a character that Parliament having laid down certain principles should leave the whole responsibility in the hands of the Secretary of State, that, he thought, would have been a more tenable ground on which to found himself. The noble Viscount could not ride two horses at once. He could not tell them that the Bill was the opening of a fresh chapter in Indian history, and at the same time ask them to be governed by exactly the same rules and regulations as affected the Act of 1892, which was of a very much more limited scope. Personally, he could not see that the amended clause as proposed by Lord Curzon would in any way derogate from the authority of the Secretary of State. The noble Viscount had asked for very wide powers indeed under the Bill. He bad pressed the actual wording of the Bill to an extent which, having sat opposite to him for a great many years in the House of Commons, he had never known him to attempt in that House. The noble Viscount had now asked their Lordships to pass clause after clause without a single amendment and without a word of difference, and the more the noble Viscount insisted upon that the more he thought he was entitled to say that what was being asked for was a blank cheque as to the manner of filling in which Parliament was given no information. In the circumstances, although he hoped Lord Ampthill would not press the latter part of his Amendment to which so much exception had been taken, he trusted that the laying of the draft proclamations, rules, and regulations on the Table of Parliament would not be made absolutely the dead letter which it would be if the Secretary of State's suggested new clause were adopted.
    THE EARL OF CREWEThere are two entirely separate propositions before the Committee. There is, first, the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ampthill, which does not, I gather, find complete favour with the Front Bench on his side of the House. I therefore will not attempt to deal at all fully with it. I said something about it on the occasion of the former debate. It does seem to me to be a most astonishing proposition. I can recall nothing like it in my Parliamentary experience. To suggest that any rule and regulation made by the Government of India under this Bill should be not merely the subject of full discussion in either House of Parliament, but that it should be within the absolute competence of noble Lords opposite, with their permanent majority, practically to frame any rule or regulation in any way they please, does seem to me the most amazing proposition I have ever heard put forward in your Lordships' House. On the other hand, there is the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, which, I understand, is also favoured by the noble Viscount who spoke last; but, that, of course, is a far more moderate proposition, because, although it gives great scope for discussion in both Houses, it gives no power of alteration to either. The proposed rules and regulations may be picked to pieces dialectically to any extent, but no power of alteration is given to either House of Parliament. Before, however, the rule or regulation is made, it must lie on the Table for sixty-five or forty days during the session of Parliament. Is that a practical proposal? Some perfectly trivial rule is, we will assume, proposed in India in the early autumn, say in the month of August. It remains suspended until Parliament meets—and we do not, I hope, always meet in the autumn. It therefore remains suspended perhaps until the middle of February. It then has to lie on the Table, and cannot come into operation until after Easter. Is that a reasonable position in which to place the Government of India? I cannot conceive any body who would less like being placed in that position than Lord Curzon. If it had been done when he was Viceroy I think he would have regarded it as an unwarranted piece of interference, I do not say with the prerogatives of the Government of India, but with the current course of their business, that this matter should be discussed in this way in Parliament. Under the clause as proposed by

    331
    my noble friend the Secretary of State the rules would come into operation, but it would be open to anybody in either House to discuss them and the power of amendment would be always there. If in your Lordships' House or in the other House a case was made out which convinced the Secretary of State and the Indian Government that a mistake had been made, any regulation could afterwards be modified or withdrawn. I should have thought that quite as great a safeguard as we possess in most matters of legislation. But I am reminded of another argument. Why is this state of things to apply only to India? Are your Lordships going to apply this sort of meticulous supervision to the Crown Colonies? In what respect does the case of Ceylon, or the West Indies, or Nigeria differ from India in these matters? And if every regulation which may be presumed to possess anything of a constitutional character is to be submitted to that spirit of preliminary observation in your Lordships' House, I can only say that the government of those parts of the Empire will be made as difficult as I think Indian government will be made if the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI will not attempt to examine the analogy which the noble Earl has presented to the Committee. I distrust analogies generally, and particularly the series of analogies made use of in the discussion of this Bill. I cannot admit any analogy drawn from our great self-governing Colonies as a precedent which necessarily applies to the Government of India, I was indeed struck by the rather reckless use of such an analogy by the noble Earl the Leader of the House the other evening when he told us that he could not conceive any Indian Lieutenant-Governor having a difficulty with his Legislative Council, because, he said, a Colonial Governor always was able, or ought to be able, to manipulate his Council. Therefore I will not pay much attention to that analogy. The noble Earl was a little severe on my noble friend Lord Ampthill. What my noble friend was evidently anxious to obtain from His Majesty's Government was some assurance that these most important matters should not be entirely withdrawn from the cognisance of Parliament. After all, we are dealing, not with small and insignificant points of detail, but with capital points of
    332
    first-rate importance—capital points with which the Secretary of State tells us he is not yet able to deal because some of them still require further examination and consideration, and with which, therefore, he intends to deal, not within the compass of the Bill, but by regulations and proclamations to be hereafter issued. We wish to have an early and sufficient opportunity of considering and offering observations upon those regulations and proclamations, and I do not think that a very unreasonable request. We are constantly stipulating that schemes issued under Acts of Parliament are to come up for consideration by the Houses of Parliament. We did it only last night in the case of a Bill creating new bishoprics. We said, not only that the schemes were to be laid on the Table, but that they were not to be effectual until Parliament had sanctioned them, or until they had lain a certain number of days without a resolution being carried against them. One word only with regard to the alleged precedent of 1892. Noble Lords opposite must know that the Act of 1892 was child's play compared to the Bill now upon the Table. But that is not all. When the discussion took place in the other House of Parliament to which the noble Viscount referred, what was being discussed was not an Amendment such as that proposed by my noble friend, still more not an Amendment such as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Curzon, but an Amendment which was simply to the effect that the rules and regulations were to obtain the "sanction" of both Houses of Parliament. We have none of us asked for that. Even my noble friend Lord Ampthill did not ask for that. Lord Curzon asks for a great deal less. He only asks that the rules before they take effect should lay for a certain number of days on the Table. The noble Viscount is, I think, anxious to meet us, perhaps not quite as much as we should wish, but to the extent of giving us as early as possible adequate opportunity of offering our criticism—we ask for nothing more—upon any of the more important regulations which may be issued under this Bill. What I venture to suggest to the Committee and to the noble Viscount is this, that my noble friend should not press his Amendment, even in the modified form, to-night, but that we should consider on Report the form of words which the noble Viscount read out to-us just now. That seams to me to be for the moment a reasonable solution of the difficulty.
    LORD AMPTHILLsaid he was obliged to exercise his right of reply on account of the attitude of the Leader of the House. The noble Earl first tried to stop him by charging him with irrelevance, and then attempted to pour ridicule upon him by entirely misrepresenting what he had said.
    THE EARL OF CREWE: I desire to explain that I had no intention whatever of holding the noble Lord up in any sense to ridicule. I was obliged to express my views most strongly on the subject of his Amendment, because its substance does seem to me extremely unusual. But I had no intention of saying anything at all offensive to the noble Lord.
    LORD AMPTHILLsaid the noble Earl had asked fire House to believe that the proclamations, rules and regulations dealt only with trivial matters of administration. It was nothing of the kind: these proclamations and regulations were to bring about real constitutional changes. It was solely on
    334
    this ground that he had urged Parliament to preserve its right in the matter. He gladly agreed, however, to the course suggested by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Remaining clause and schedules agreed to.
    Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendment to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 8.)

    HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
    First Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 9.)
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, hall-past Ten o'clock.